geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: what is the best way to update a geode pull request
Date Fri, 31 May 2019 20:33:21 GMT
Let’s update the checklist to match the outcome of this thread:
https://github.com/apache/geode/blob/develop/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md <https://github.com/apache/geode/blob/develop/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md>

Anthony


> On May 31, 2019, at 1:31 PM, Helena Bales <hbales@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 
> +1. I would guess that it is the checklist as part of the PR that is
> confusing people.
> 
> The other reason that history gets rewritten is when force pushing after a
> rebase. While fast-forwarding is necessary on occasion, this can be
> accomplished without rewriting history by using a merge.
> 
> As part of our document on making PRs, we should include instructions on
> how to handle the situation where fast-forwarding is necessary, explicitly
> discourage the use of merges and force-pushes once a PR has been opened,
> and some guidelines regarding the appropriate number of commits when the PR
> is initially opened. Once we have these guidelines, it would be helpful to
> link to them from the PR checklist that we currently have, and rework the
> checklist so that it is in line with our desired process.
> 
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 1:20 PM Darrel Schneider <dschneider@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> 
>> Something I have noticed is that often when I have requested changes be
>> made to a pull request is that the changes are force pushed ask a single
>> commit to the pr. I would actually prefer that the changes show up as a new
>> commit on the pr instead of everything being rebased into one commit. That
>> makes the history of the pr easier to follow and make it easy to see what
>> has changed since the previous review. What do others think? Have we done
>> something that makes contributors think the pull request has to be single
>> commit? I know the initial pull request is supposed to be but from then on
>> I'd prefer that we wait to squash when we merge it to develop.
>> 


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message