Hi, If I can I want show to you some advantages/disadvantages as I see as collaborator to external project. Maybe some of them you will like.
I've analyzed some commits what I did to maven-invoker-plugin project. I used: git log --graph --show-signature --format=full *1. commit made manually - without using github ui* https://github.com/apache/maven-invoker-plugin/pull/13 * commit 808d2d20f16771aa18ee87a53b52e70b031d53a0 | Author: Slawomir Jaranowski <s.jaranow...@gmail.com> | Commit: Sylwester Lachiewicz <slachiew...@apache.org> | | [MINVOKER-257] Test code should meet checkstyle requirements | | Closes #13 A: - no github user - committer and reviewer are known for git history D: - manually work - lost my pgp signature -* so commit may have been changed* *2. probably rebase and merge or squash at github* https://github.com/apache/maven-invoker-plugin/pull/12 * commit a9e215cded354f25a81c616cd8aa8af767665494 | gpg: Signature made Sun Feb 16 21:55:34 2020 CET | gpg: using RSA key 4AEE18F83AFDEB23 | gpg: Good signature from "GitHub (web-flow commit signing) < nore...@github.com>" [ultimate] | Author: Slawomir Jaranowski <s.jaranow...@gmail.com> | Commit: GitHub <nore...@github.com> | | [MINVOKER-256] upgrade parent pom to latest version - 34 (#12) A: - no manually work - committer is known from git history D: - reviewer isn't known for git history - lost my pgp signature - github as commiter - pgp signature from github user - maybe advantage - we have some check of integrity *3*.* merg pull request at github* https://github.com/apache/maven-invoker-plugin/pull/9 * commit 77e3a86e0ff10dd016382621d40a4ca0bbcb7883 |\ gpg: Signature made Sun Nov 17 22:12:29 2019 CET | | gpg: using RSA key 4AEE18F83AFDEB23 | | gpg: Good signature from "GitHub (web-flow commit signing) < nore...@github.com>" [ultimate] | | Merge: a9ce363 bbdaabc | | Author: Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> | | Commit: GitHub <nore...@github.com> | | | | some log is too verbose in normal run | | | * commit bbdaabc1f319335ab8478016a45cdfe93fd0bae4 |/ gpg: Signature made Sun Nov 17 21:22:02 2019 CET | gpg: using RSA key 6636274B2E8BEA9D15A61143F8484389379ACEAC | gpg: Good signature from "Slawomir Jaranowski <s.jaranow...@gmail.com>" [ultimate] | Author: Slawomir Jaranowski <s.jaranow...@gmail.com> | Commit: Slawomir Jaranowski <s.jaranow...@gmail.com> | | some log is too more verbose in normal run A: - no manually work - committer and reviewer are known for git history - preserve original commit and pgp signature of commiter - no change to commit body D: - two commits - but one is merge commit - github as commiter in merge commit ################################# Personally I like and use option 3. Repository can be configured which option is allowed. I think, that every author of change should do the most of work as is possible and reviewer should do review and do one action as easy as possible. sob., 21 mar 2020 o 19:53 Benjamin Marwell <bmarw...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > Checkstyle builds will fail of there is more than one commit in a PR. > Not saying I like it, but it's an option. > > > > > On Sat, 21 Mar 2020, 16:17 Elliotte Rusty Harold, <elh...@ibiblio.org> > wrote: > > > So it appears that if I do all squashing and merging locally and then > > push directly to master, I get listed as committer and author: > > > > > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven-shared-utils.git&a=commit&h=4264899a152a6205b0f34a32e9c947edcd9cb1e8 > > > > Github is no longer listed as the committer. This is what we want. > > > > However this is quite cumbersome, and I'm confident I'm going to mix > > this up, probably sooner rather than later. E.g. I might forget or > > squash or worse yet push commits into master I didn't want to push. > > > > Does anyone have an alternate workflow that lets us use the Github > > buttons? If not, is keeping Github out of the committer messages > > critical? It seems Author is still accurate. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 2:46 PM Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > This week I was very surprised to see commits from the user call > > "github" in Jenkins: > > > > > > https://builds.apache.org/job/maven-box/job/maven-shared-utils/job/master/changes > > > > > > > > > IMO we shouldn't want these kind of commits. > > > Based on the most recent activities I had a chat with Sylwester en > > Elliotte. > > > > > > The reason is the author of these commits was Elliotte, but the > > committer Github > > > > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven-shared-utils.git&a=commit&h=8ed3e6827885a161a8802100f0f50968555356b0 > > > > > > > > > Elliotte tried to figure it out, and his conclusion was that in case he > > squashed and merged commits via github, the committer became github. > > > > > > If this is indeed the case, we should always ask the author to squash > > his commits so we can track the commit better, and it makes it easier to > > find possible regressions (and revert them when necessary) > > > > > > Not sure if this would help, but my WOW is creating a patch from > github, > > and applying it to the gitBOX url. Squashing and merging it from here > would > > at least make me the committer. > > > > > > It there are other opinions, ideas, please share. > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > -- > > Elliotte Rusty Harold > > elh...@ibiblio.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > -- Sławomir Jaranowski
