Hey folks, thanks for your thoughts! I have some responses for you. :)
Regarding squashing, it looks like there are three things at play -- forgive me if I've misunderstood. 1. Merge commits exactly as they are in the PR. 2. Squash all commits down to the first commit 3. Automatically squash fixup! and squash! commits but leave things as they are otherwise. Is the prevailing sentiment to enable all three of these, or just two? To address Ismaël's comment about gaining insight into what MergeBot is doing, I have two suggestions. a) MergeBot can comment back the list of commands that it took in the case that it failed. b) MergeBot can comment a link to the merge log for the PR in question. We already capture this and put it somewhere internet-accessible, it's just not particularly discoverable. This way people could watch the actual STDOUT as MergeBot is operating, or after it fails to merge a PR. Would that help? Also for the curious, I'm tracking all the future MergeBot work I can think of in the doc linked below (I may wind up filing tickets for some of this stuff at some point, but am more likely to track via github issues on the mergebot repository for now). Comments welcome. :) https://docs.google.com/document/d/13D1nUgTeonyvNtRi4bJM-Vyj9YOCVHZT7QA6EOauKT4/edit On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Robert Bradshaw < > rober...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com.invalid > > > > wrote: > > > > > The thing is that "fixup! <prior subject line>" indicates that this > fixup > > > should be reordered and applied to the referenced commit. Squashing in > > > order is not correct. I think the bot reordering to squash is not a > good > > > idea. > > > > I don't see why reordering in this case is a bad thing (if it applies > > cleanly--one could even automatically check that the patches commute). > > > > > So maybe I wasn't clear about the options I want. I want both of: > > > > > > (1) The bot merges the commits exactly as they are (for the > > > git-knowledgable) > > > (2) The bot squashes all the commits in order (for casual contributors) > > > > > > Way simpler than anything interactive and with no reording by the bot. > > > The rest of my thoughts were just ways to further avoid messing this > up. > > > > Yeah, these are the most common, and I highly agree should make it > > hard to accidentally merge fixup commits. I would like to support the > > (common) case of an advanced user having fixup commits in the review, > > but being able to merge without waiting for her to manually squash > > them after the LGTM. > > > > OK, yea, I think it is fair to allow the bot to try to reorder if it goes > cleanly. So sounds good to me. > > Kenn > -- ------- Jason Kuster Apache Beam / Google Cloud Dataflow
