mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Which merge option to use on the Import Julia binding PR?
Date Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:03:03 GMT
+1 for rebase and merge

Aaron Markham <aaron.s.markham@gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 27. Sep. 2018,
06:27:

> +1 to rebase and merge to retain the efforts of all of the contributors. If
> there's some git maintenance that can trim it down from 700+ commits then
> maybe that's a compromise.
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 21:23 Naveen Swamy <mnnaveen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > this PR comes from more than 1 individual, if we squash merge we'll not
> be
> > able to attribute the contribution of those individuals.
> >
> > +1 to rebase merge to preserve history
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Tianqi Chen <tqchen@cs.washington.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > One of the main reason for a rebase merge is that it preserves the
> commit
> > > history of the MXNet.jl package contributors, and given that the
> project
> > > has been evolved since 2015 and has always been a high-quality language
> > > module for MXNet.
> > >
> > > I think we should take an exception here to preserve the commit history
> > of
> > > each individual contributors to the Julia binding and welcome them to
> the
> > > community.
> > >
> > > Tianqi
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 8:55 PM Tianqi Chen <tqchen@cs.washington.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In this particular case, I would suggest rebase and merge.
> > > >
> > > > The main reasoning is that the commit log of the Julia binding is not
> > > > simple WIP commits, every commit there has been done through
> testcases
> > > and
> > > > it is important for us to respect the developer of the effort. It is
> > also
> > > > good to trace back the history of the commits more easily.
> > > >
> > > > Tianqi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tianqi
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 5:34 PM Carin Meier <carinmeier@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Chiyuan,
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for the prompt to find some clarity of the pros and cons of
> > > each. I
> > > >> think that will help drive us to the right decision. I think some
of
> > > those
> > > >> reasons are the ones you listed. I will take a stab below at
> outlining
> > > >> what
> > > >> I see. Feel free to chime in if I missed any.
> > > >>
> > > >> *Squash and Merge*
> > > >>   *Pros* - It is the project standard
> > > >>           - It will provide one commit for the feature and lessen
> the
> > > need
> > > >> for 700+ commits rebased on top of master.
> > > >>          - It is easier for a user to do git log to browse commits
> and
> > > see
> > > >> what was features were added.
> > > >>   *Cons* - I don't know how github would handle squashing all those
> > > commit
> > > >> messages into one. Will it be too much?
> > > >>             - You lose the granularity of the features individual
> > > commits
> > > >>
> > > >> *Rebase and Merge*
> > > >>  * Pros *- You don't have a huge commit message with one commit
> > > >>           -  You do have the granularity of the individual features
> of
> > > the
> > > >> commit
> > > >>  * Cons *- It is not the project standard
> > > >>            - You have 700+ commits on top of master that might be
> > harder
> > > >> to
> > > >> see the ones that went in right before. (like someone browsing
> > commits)
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 8:12 PM Chiyuan Zhang <pluskid@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Hi Carin,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Can you clarify the pros and cons of the two approaches? Is the
> main
> > > >> > concern here about logistics (e.g. preserving the history of
the
> > > >> original
> > > >> > repo and developments) or technical issue (e.g. using squash
might
> > end
> > > >> up
> > > >> > with a huuuuge commit message that might be difficult or hard
to
> > > >> handle)?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I think it might not be very likely that someone is going to
> cherry
> > > pick
> > > >> > revert some of the commits. But preserving the commit history
is
> > still
> > > >> > useful in case one need to trace the change or bisect for some
> > > >> regression
> > > >> > bugs, etc.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Just to provide some context: the PR actually contains 700+
> commits,
> > > >> and it
> > > >> > dates back to 2015. The development of the Julia binding started
> in
> > > the
> > > >> > early stage of MXNet. We started with a separate repo due to
the
> > > >> > requirement of the package system of julia.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Best,
> > > >> > Chiyuan
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:41 PM Carin Meier <carinmeier@gmail.com
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > The Import Julia binding PR ,(
> > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/10149), is
> getting
> > > >> very
> > > >> > > close to being merged. Because of the large number of commits
> > there
> > > >> was a
> > > >> > > suggestion not to use the usual "Squash and Merge".  The
only
> > option
> > > >> > would
> > > >> > > be "Rebase and Merge" since merging with a merge commit
is not
> > > enabled
> > > >> > for
> > > >> > > the project.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > *Squash and Merge* - The commits from this branch will be
> combined
> > > >> into
> > > >> > one
> > > >> > > commit in the base branch (With all the commit messages
> combined)
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > *Rebase and Merge* - The commits from this branch will be
> rebased
> > > and
> > > >> > added
> > > >> > > to the base branch
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > The PR is over 250+ commits (Github won't show all of them)
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thoughts about how we should handle the merge?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > Carin
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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