Cos, Surely you are referring to other commits, unless you are joking.
https://github.com/apache/bigtop/commit/40fd25e52cace1245dd669307326c3cb20044335 <https://github.com/apache/bigtop/commit/40fd25e52cace1245dd669307326c3cb20044335> https://github.com/apache/bigtop/commit/ba4c1bf7e29ba639137259308d8b6e0252ef7fb9 <https://github.com/apache/bigtop/commit/ba4c1bf7e29ba639137259308d8b6e0252ef7fb9> https://github.com/apache/bigtop/commit/d78693bed54fbb239aacff939a2e03663050d887 <https://github.com/apache/bigtop/commit/d78693bed54fbb239aacff939a2e03663050d887> Olaf > Am 20.03.2017 um 06:00 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>: > > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Olaf Flebbe <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Hooray! So we can smash the one commit == one JIRA mantra? > > That's not what I said, really. If you look into this ODPi > contribution you'd notice that the same mantra applies there as well. > When we ask github contributors to squash their commits, we actually > going after noisy commits that reflect review comments and such. In > other words, nothing that is material for the contribution. > > On the other hand, if you think this requirement should be more > relaxed - let's discuss this as we usually do with this type of > things. > > Regards, > Cos > >> It was a bit of a pain in the $$$ to let the github commit's of contributors >> smashed to one commit. I am not a huge fan of this mantra, since it is a bit >> artifiically at times. >> >> Olaf >> >> >>> Am 18.03.2017 um 19:10 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Preserving the history is a good thing. This will clearly marks the merge >>> point and not merely a "huge code blob coming from elsewhere". After all, >>> one >>> day it might be an interesting exercise for archaeologists, who knows ;) >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 02:23AM, Evans Ye wrote: >>>> Roman you makes a good point about IP. >>>> >>>> I am thinking that is it possible to have a development guideline that one >>>> ODPi commit can be one Bigtop commit? The thing here I am trying to propse >>> >>> I don't believe we ought to impose any sort of special guidelines for ODPi >>> (or >>> anyone else, in this matter). As we don't expect any other >>> organization/individuals to do anything special outside of standard process >>> for their contributions. >>> >>> We have project's development guidelines and anyone who feels like >>> contributing shall follow these rules. For the merges like this we can >>> roughly >>> follow the principles of "code grants" and just accept it as is with the >>> original history. But unlike code grants we don't need to do any special IP >>> clearance or signing an official grant forms: ODPi development is happening >>> under the same license, is happening in the open, and has similar governing >>> principles as most of the Apache projects. >>> >>> Cos >>> >>> >>>> is to bring two community working more closely from now on. >>>> For those commits already made before, I think to preseve authors is >>>> better. >>>> >>>> Thanks for kicking off the discussion. >>>> >>>> >>>> 김영우 (YoungWoo Kim) <[email protected]>於 2017年3月18日 週六，上午9:06寫道： >>>> >>>>> Personal preference is merging into one commit. But in this case, I >>>>> believe >>>>> >>>>> it's good to go with preserving the commit history. The history info >>>>> >>>>> provides us the details of development and also commits are already >>>>> >>>>> reviewed and tested by bigtop members right? :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Youngwoo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2017. 3. 18. 오전 12:16에 "Roman Shaposhnik" <[email protected]>님이 작성: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi! >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> as Evans quite rightfully noted right here: >>>>> >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-2696 >>>>> >>>>>> I merged ODPi changes preserving ODPi >>>>> >>>>>> commit history. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Now, assuming that a given change coming from >>>>> >>>>>> ODPi looks OK to Bigtop development community, >>>>> >>>>>> what would be the preference here? Preserve the >>>>> >>>>>> history (this will mean, among other things, commit >>>>> >>>>>> messages with ODPi JIRA IDs in them, etc.) OR >>>>> >>>>>> squashing everything? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> My rationale for preservation was my obsession with >>>>> >>>>>> IP lineage. Basically who contributed what at which >>>>> >>>>>> point under which License and ICLA. The downside >>>>> >>>>>> is the JIRA IDs and comments in the commits. Btw, >>>>> >>>>>> all those JIRAs are public, but of course they have nothing >>>>> >>>>>> to do with ASF. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>>> Roman. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
