mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Markham <aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Squash/Merge PRs
Date Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:16:24 GMT
 This is a great discussion, and close to my heart, because I want to
include more writers and editors in our community, and I'm struggling to
see how to best manage this. It seems like being the sole contributor on a
feature is like an engineer's Lone Ranger badge of pride! I feel like it
should be a red flag.

I work in collaboration with dozens of engineers to improve their
documentation, explain their features, change flows to improve user
experience, and sometimes fix bugs and write code. When the PR's docs has
great coverage, is clear, and not loaded with bad grammar and spelling
mistakes, I will put comments in a review. But sometimes there needs to be
a complete rework such that hundreds of review comments isn't feasible, and
they can't be properly addressed. In a lot of these cases, I commit my
changes to someone else's fork. Now I know the people I work with on their
PRs appreciate my help, but when all of this work gets squashed down to one
commit, I'm pretty much regularly getting squashed out. I'm not sure who
else is in this boat, but does the community recognize our contributions
when this is the general mode of operation?

Regarding co-author - I'm not sure how people would feel about me being a
co-author on their work. Documentation and clarity in your work product is
important, but people's views on their personal *code* contribution seems
to be more important than the overall code & feature quality itself when
docs are part of the package. I feel that if I do follow-on PRs instead of
fixing things before they are merged, that we would be releasing incorrect,
incomplete, and inferior product. But, in absence of a better solution,
maybe that's the pill we have to swallow.

-1 on lots of small PRs (until we expand our range of committers and reduce
the latency in reviews and merges).
+1 on improving the quality of commit messages, so we don't have to squash
& merge all of the time.
+1 on improving the practice of better commit & merge management so that
the commit history is concise and meaningful. (I'm guilty of this, and
certainly need to improve here.)
+1 on co-author - assuming that's what most everyone thinks is a good
solution for now. I'm unclear on how this gets managed though.

Cheers,
Aaron


On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:19 AM, Anton Chernov <mechernov@gmail.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately there has been significant push back for small iterative PR's
> and as a result they have grown substantially involving multiple
> contributors, multiple commits, sometimes multiple branches to be worked
> on.
>
> I fully agree and support all points that Jin raised:
>
> 1) Most contributions should be broken down into smallest possible PR's.
> 2) If a PR is small enough a single person can complete it.
> 3) If a majority of PR is done by someone, and there's some minor issue
> he/she needs help with it could be done in a follow up PR by anybody,
> including the reviewer.
>
> Best regards,
> Anton
>
> чт, 12 июл. 2018 г. в 10:11, Hao Jin <hjjn.amzn@gmail.com>:
>
> > +1 for Marco's proposal on using the co-author field. IMHO the usage of
> > co-author field should not be that often, consider:
> > 1) If a PR is so big that it needs multiple people to contribute a
> > substantial part of it, why can't that PR be broken down into smaller PRs
> > each submitted by single one of them?
> > 2) If a PR is small enough (for example, < 300 lines), why can't a single
> > person complete it?
> > 3) If a majority of PR is done by someone, and there's some minor issue
> > he/she needs help with(a small bug, incomplete doc), why can't that be
> done
> > through code reviews?
> > From the above 3 situations we can see that collaborations on individual
> > PRs should not be quite often, but I do agree that it could still be
> > necessary when someone lacks the related expertise/knowledge on some
> > necessary part of that PR given that the required knowledge cannot be
> > picked up in a short period of time.
> >
> > I do agree that keeping the commit histories of PRs clean is very
> important
> > as it could be confusing when reviewing PRs, but that really depends on
> > personal preferences (For my case, I usually do "git commit --amend" on
> > trivial changes and get a new commit for bigger changes such as a
> > checkpoint of my whole PR). With growing the community and attracting
> more
> > contributors as a high priority for our project, I would prefer that we
> do
> > not put even more burden on the contributors by asking them to manage and
> > squash the commits themselves just for the not-so-often cases of having
> > multiple contributors on a single PR.
> > Best regards,
> > Hao
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:35 AM, Marco de Abreu <
> > marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Naveen,
> > >
> > > I'm in favour of the squashing, considering the number of commits in
> some
> > > PRs and especially because of some people making commit messages a la
> > "fix"
> > > "fix" "fix" all the time. Additionally, it gets hard (not impossible,
> > just
> > > more inconvenient) to determine the atomic states of master - aka,
> which
> > > commits are separate from each other. You should consider that
> > intermediary
> > > commits are unstable (fail CI) and thus it could be very hard to bisect
> > > failures in future - and the commit history gets cluttered.
> > >
> > > As alternative, I'd like to suggest the co-author field for these
> cases.
> > > Further documentation is available at
> > > https://blog.github.com/2018-01-29-commit-together-with-co-authors/.
> > >
> > > I definitely agree with the second part. We should all lead by example
> > and
> > > maintain a high quality by keeping our commit messages clean and
> > > meaningful. When I receive an email notification that a new commit has
> > been
> > > added and it only contains "fix" as title, it's not that helpful and
> also
> > > it's hard to track the development of a PR overtime. E.g., why has
> > > something been changed? Was there maybe a bug that we didn't cover with
> > > tests but the author just hacked something to get it to work but the
> > > problem still lays somewhere? We won't know that way and it makes it
> > harder
> > > for us to review.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Marco
> > >
> > >
> > > Naveen Swamy <mnnaveen@gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 12. Juli 2018,
> 10:09:
> > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > I am seeing that maintainers merge PRs into the repo, they are
> > squashing
> > > > the commits in the PR, which I understand and agree is to keep a sane
> > > > commit history, however this is causing problem when there are
> multiple
> > > > contributors involved on a PR(by contributing to a fork of the repo)
> > this
> > > > effectively removes credit for multiple contributors involved and
> shows
> > > all
> > > > code as authored by the contributor who created the PR.
> > > >
> > > > Can I request maintainers to not squash PRs if there are multiple
> > > > contributors involved on the PR.
> > > >
> > > > Also on the same note, I request contributors(regardless of multiple
> > > > contributors or not) to keep a clean commit history by squashing the
> > > > commits and not push all your WIP commits to the PR. this will help
> us
> > > keep
> > > > our commit history clean and meaningful.
> > > >
> > > > Let me know your thoughts/better approach or If I have misunderstood
> > how
> > > > this works.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Naveen
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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