On Jul 2, 2015, at 8:43 AM, Wilder Rodrigues <wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> Sateesh and Rajesh, > > It seems you were the only guys who +1 the squash idea. Could you please > share with us what benefits you think squashing commits will bring? > > I wil give you the simplest example that could come to my mind to encourage > no squash: > > * I open a Java class with 5 thousand lines. The first thing I do is format > the code and commit the change. > * I go back to the class and apply the fix, let’s say, a 3 lines change, then > I commit the change again. > In our overall effort, I think squashing discussion is lower priority. Agreeing to do PR reviews with 2 LGTM before merge is already a very big step in stabilizing master and helping with releases. that should be our higher priority. That said, I work on libcloud as well. It is a much smaller project. But there we squash before committing on master. There can be several commits in the PR, because one will surely amend the PR based on review. But once it's accepted, it gets merged as a single commit. You all know I am not a hard core dev guy like some of you Java gurus. The benefit I see in squashing is that in your release branch (master), one functionality is encapsulated in a single commit. You don't need to look through 10-20 commits whose messages seem unrelated. You might be able to run some git magic to get all of it, but when I look a the basic commit history, things are right there in front of me. Now if I want to create a bug fix release, and I choose to cherry-pick that very thing. I cherry pick one commit, and that's it. So IMHO, the history of the commit should be in the PR review, not on the master git history. I dream for a day with a super clean master commit history of only merges/PR, with JIRA bug ID. -sebastien > Now, think about the PR. It will contain 2 commits: 1 with the formatting > changes only; and a second commit with 3 lines change. > > Would you like to see it quashed and all messed up? It would be very > difficult to review. > > That’s just a simple example. > > Cheers, > Wilder > >> On 02 Jul 2015, at 07:22, Rajesh Battala <rajesh.batt...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> +1 for squashing commit >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Burwell [mailto:john.burw...@shapeblue.com] >> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2015 12:14 AM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Commit to master through PR only >> >> All, >> >> I think we should stick to 2 votes per PR. Defining types of PRs becomes >> difficult bordering on the arbitrary — adding a process complexity and the >> potential to start debating if a particular PR is one type or another. >> >> I agree regarding the fast forward, and feel that all PRs should squashed >> down to one commit. Ultimately, intermediate commits that seem informative >> in a feature branch become noise in a history as large as CloudStack’s. >> >> To enforce the policy and ensure that PRs are merged in an orderly and >> correct manner (i.e. one at time), I think we should consider adopting a >> tool such as bors [1] to verify that the merge passes all tests and then >> performs the merge. It would some minor modification to require two votes, >> but I doubt that would take much effort to implement. If there is interest, >> I would happy to make those changes for the project. >> >> Thanks, >> -John >> >> [1]: https://github.com/graydon/bors >> >> --- >> John Burwell (@john_burwell) >> VP of Software Engineering, ShapeBlue >> (571) 403-2411 | +44 20 3603 0542 >> http://www.shapeblue.com >> >> >> >>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>>> On 25-Jun-2015, at 4:38 pm, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> A few of us are in Amsterdam at DevOps days. We are chatting about release >>>> management procedure. >>>> Remi is working on a set of principles that he will put on the wiki to >>>> start a [DISCUSS]. >>>> >>>> However to get started on the right track. I would like to propose the >>>> following easy step: >>>> >>>> Starting Monday June 29th (next monday): >>>> >>>> - Only commit through PR will land on master (after a minimum of 2 LGTM >>>> and green Travis results) >>>> - Direct commit will be reverted >>>> - Any committer can merge the PR. >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> I’ve been trying to help close PRs, it was difficult at first but then I >>> found some tooling to help me do that. I think it’s certainly do-able >>> without investing a lot of effort to do it, perhaps can done everyday or >>> every few days in a week. >>> >>> Some suggestions and comments to improve PR reviewing/merging: >>> >>> - Let's merge the PR commits in a fast forward way instead of doing a >>> branch merge that introduces frivolous merge commits. This is one approach >>> to do quickly and painlessly: >>> >>> http://blog.remibergsma.com/2015/05/24/accepting-pull-requests-the-easy-way/ >>> >>> - Let’s try to send PR around on one issue or one broad issue, or against a >>> JIRA ticket; but avoid unrelated sub-systems etc >>> >>> - If there are not many changes (say less than 100-200 lines were changed), >>> let's have the changes melded into one commit. This can be done either by >>> the PR author or by the committer. The immediate benefit is that all the >>> changes will be much easy to port across other branches, easy to view and >>> follow git-log, and easy to revert-able. >>> >>> - Certain PRs that are typographical fixes, doc fixes and tooling related >>> fixes - so let’s review and merge them if we’ve at least one green review >>> (“LGTM”), though changes to CloudStack mgmt server, agent and plugins >>> codebase IMO should have at least 2 green reviews (“LGTM”). >>> >>>> Goal being to start having a new practice -everything through PR for >>>> everyone- which is an easy way to gate our own commits building up to a PR. >>>> >>>> There is no tooling involved, just human agreement. >>>> >>>> cheers, >>> >>> Regards, >>> Rohit Yadav >>> Software Architect, ShapeBlue >>> M. +91 88 262 30892 | rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com >>> Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab >>> >>> >>> >>> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services >>> >>> IaaS Cloud Design & >>> Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> >>> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> >>> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> >>> CloudStack Software >>> Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/> >>> CloudStack Infrastructure >>> Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> >>> CloudStack Bootcamp Training >>> Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> >>> >>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended >>> solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or >>> opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily >>> represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the >>> intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based >>> upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender >>> if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a >>> company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a >>> company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue >>> Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil >>> and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is >>> a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under >>> license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark. >> >> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services >> >> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> >> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> >> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> >> CloudStack Software >> Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/> >> CloudStack Infrastructure >> Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> >> CloudStack Bootcamp Training >> Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> >> >> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended >> solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or >> opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily >> represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the >> intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based >> upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender >> if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a >> company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a >> company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue >> Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil >> and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a >> company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under >> license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark. >
