I think it's a bad precident but can't argue given the constraints presented. I agree a line in the commit for explaining the situation would be good. That could be an s.apache.org short URL to this thread even.
> On Sep 28, 2018, at 12:08 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> wrote: > > OK if the empty commit itself is the way to close PRs then I think it is > fine. Maybe we could add a line in the commit message to mention this > explicitly that the commit message is the key to close the PRs, so that we > will not start discussion thread like again in the future? > > Thanks. > > Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> 于2018年9月28日周五 下午2:38写道： > >> The commit itself is the mechanism used to close PRs. If you'd like >> detailed information, please read the explanation I gave on the thread >> "move to github flow" earlier this month[1]. >> >> We already have a section in our committer guide asking folks who >> review PRs to make sure the needed language is in the commit that gets >> merged[2]. But even if mistakes didn't happen, the vast majority of >> opened PRs are closed out as stale because the contributor never >> follows up after we ask them to open a JIRA. >> >> the tl;dr: given our current project set up our options are >> >> 1) Ignore that there are github PRs present (and thus look like an >> inactive or poorly maintained project) >> >> 2) Switch to the newer "Dual Master" git setup (which will require a >> nontrivial amount of tooling changes) >> >> 3) Push commits that close PRs (as we are doing) >> >> As the person who's done the vast majority of this maintenance work >> over the last 3 years I'd be happy to see myself replaced with a bot. >> But for reasons explained in the excellent thread on a github workflow >> mentioned above, I don't think that should be a priority for the >> project. >> >> I've only had to push 8 empty commits to keep our GitHub PR list >> cleaned up[2] in this whole time. On each of those some committer as >> signed off on the idea that we need a commit to master that indicates >> the PR is done. >> >> [1]: https://s.apache.org/dBXC >> >> [2]: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#_close_related_github_prs >> >> [3]: https://s.apache.org/hgCv >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:19 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> I think record the information on jira is enough, so I prefer no empty >>> commit. >>> >>> Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> 于2018年9月28日周五 上午9:56写道： >>> >>>> There is an odd commit on master that has 0 file changes. >>>> >>>> commit 98b1feac771d7cc5778fb14089834c99642a3533 >>>> Author: Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> >>>> Date: Wed Sep 26 15:00:05 2018 -0700 >>>> >>>> HBASE-21241 Close stale PRs >>>> >>>> * Closes #86 - referenced JIRA has already been merged >>>> * Closes #90 - no response from contributor for 24 days >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Somogyi <psomo...@apache.org> >>>> >>>> When did we agree to allow empty commits? I don't recall the >> discussion. >>>> For one I am opposed to this practice. Isn't the JIRA HBASE-21241 >>>> sufficient to account for this activity? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's >>>> decrepit hands >>>> - A23, Crosstalk >>>> >>
