We are actually running into troubles with using the subtree and the rebase. Since it looks like this is not going to be a simple, "click the button" through the web page merge, I rather hand this task off to someone with more context in making sure it gets in there correctly.
Chiyuan or any others, would you be willing to take this over? Thanks, Carin On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:00 PM Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com> wrote: > Should we try to first being into a branch and then try merge that branch? > > > On Sep 28, 2018, at 4:40 PM, Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I'm not familiar with the specifics of this contribution, as a general > > approach my understanding is that if the list of commits is big and you > > want to preserve history, usually merging is better so you keep history > and > > causality, if you rebase all the commits on top of master you are > changing > > the history of these commits which can't be individually reverted as some > > have suggested before. Maybe is because I come from a mercurial > background, > > but my initial impression would be either to: > > 1. squash everything and rebase > > 2. or merge without rebasing or squashing. > > > > Pedro. > > > >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:10 PM Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Thanks everyone for the input. I'll try to summarize the feedback from > the > >> responses: > >> > >> Using Squash-Merge is the project standard for very good reasons. > However, > >> in the case of this PR to bring in the Julia language from its sibling > >> repo, we want to preserve all the individual commits of the many > >> contributors that have worked over multiple years to make this a great > >> language binding. We will use Rebase-Merge for it. > >> > >> Chiyuan - thanks for the suggestion of using a tag. I think we can try > it > >> initially without it since there are other ways to browse the commit > >> history, like looking at the PRs. But, we can add the tag retroactively > if > >> people start having trouble. > >> > >> If there no objections, I will merge the PR using the above method in my > >> morning (EST). > >> > >> Thanks everyone! I'm looking forward to having the Julia community join > the > >> main repo and increasing our collaboration with them. > >> > >> Best, > >> Carin > >> > >>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 1:37 PM Chiyuan Zhang <plus...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> +1 for rebase and merge. As a workaround for the aforementioned issue, > >>> maybe we can create a tag for the commit before the merge, so that in > >> case > >>> people want to browse the recent main-repo commits by skipping this big > >>> chunk of rebased commits, there is a pointer to take his or her hand > on. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Chiyuan > >>> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:34 AM Jason Dai <jason....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +1 to rebase and merge to preserve and track the contributions. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> -Jason > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 12:27 PM Aaron Markham < > >>> aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> +1 to rebase and merge to retain the efforts of all of the > >>> contributors. > >>>> If > >>>>> there's some git maintenance that can trim it down from 700+ commits > >>> then > >>>>> maybe that's a compromise. > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 21:23 Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> this PR comes from more than 1 individual, if we squash merge we'll > >>> not > >>>>> be > >>>>>> able to attribute the contribution of those individuals. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +1 to rebase merge to preserve history > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Tianqi Chen < > >>>> tqc...@cs.washington.edu> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> One of the main reason for a rebase merge is that it preserves > >> the > >>>>> commit > >>>>>>> history of the MXNet.jl package contributors, and given that the > >>>>> project > >>>>>>> has been evolved since 2015 and has always been a high-quality > >>>> language > >>>>>>> module for MXNet. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think we should take an exception here to preserve the commit > >>>> history > >>>>>> of > >>>>>>> each individual contributors to the Julia binding and welcome > >> them > >>> to > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> community. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Tianqi > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 8:55 PM Tianqi Chen < > >>>> tqc...@cs.washington.edu> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In this particular case, I would suggest rebase and merge. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The main reasoning is that the commit log of the Julia binding > >> is > >>>> not > >>>>>>>> simple WIP commits, every commit there has been done through > >>>>> testcases > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> it is important for us to respect the developer of the effort. > >> It > >>>> is > >>>>>> also > >>>>>>>> good to trace back the history of the commits more easily. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Tianqi > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Tianqi > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 5:34 PM Carin Meier < > >>> carinme...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Chiyuan, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the prompt to find some clarity of the pros and > >> cons > >>> of > >>>>>>> each. I > >>>>>>>>> think that will help drive us to the right decision. I think > >>> some > >>>> of > >>>>>>> those > >>>>>>>>> reasons are the ones you listed. I will take a stab below at > >>>>> outlining > >>>>>>>>> what > >>>>>>>>> I see. Feel free to chime in if I missed any. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *Squash and Merge* > >>>>>>>>> *Pros* - It is the project standard > >>>>>>>>> - It will provide one commit for the feature and > >>> lessen > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> need > >>>>>>>>> for 700+ commits rebased on top of master. > >>>>>>>>> - It is easier for a user to do git log to browse > >>> commits > >>>>> and > >>>>>>> see > >>>>>>>>> what was features were added. > >>>>>>>>> *Cons* - I don't know how github would handle squashing all > >>>> those > >>>>>>> commit > >>>>>>>>> messages into one. Will it be too much? > >>>>>>>>> - You lose the granularity of the features > >>> individual > >>>>>>> commits > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *Rebase and Merge* > >>>>>>>>> * Pros *- You don't have a huge commit message with one > >> commit > >>>>>>>>> - You do have the granularity of the individual > >>>> features > >>>>> of > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> commit > >>>>>>>>> * Cons *- It is not the project standard > >>>>>>>>> - You have 700+ commits on top of master that might > >>> be > >>>>>> harder > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> see the ones that went in right before. (like someone browsing > >>>>>> commits) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 8:12 PM Chiyuan Zhang < > >>> plus...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Carin, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Can you clarify the pros and cons of the two approaches? Is > >>> the > >>>>> main > >>>>>>>>>> concern here about logistics (e.g. preserving the history of > >>> the > >>>>>>>>> original > >>>>>>>>>> repo and developments) or technical issue (e.g. using squash > >>>> might > >>>>>> end > >>>>>>>>> up > >>>>>>>>>> with a huuuuge commit message that might be difficult or > >> hard > >>> to > >>>>>>>>> handle)? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I think it might not be very likely that someone is going to > >>>>> cherry > >>>>>>> pick > >>>>>>>>>> revert some of the commits. But preserving the commit > >> history > >>> is > >>>>>> still > >>>>>>>>>> useful in case one need to trace the change or bisect for > >> some > >>>>>>>>> regression > >>>>>>>>>> bugs, etc. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Just to provide some context: the PR actually contains 700+ > >>>>> commits, > >>>>>>>>> and it > >>>>>>>>>> dates back to 2015. The development of the Julia binding > >>> started > >>>>> in > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> early stage of MXNet. We started with a separate repo due to > >>> the > >>>>>>>>>> requirement of the package system of julia. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>> Chiyuan > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:41 PM Carin Meier < > >>>> carinme...@gmail.com > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The Import Julia binding PR ,( > >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/10149), is > >>>>> getting > >>>>>>>>> very > >>>>>>>>>>> close to being merged. Because of the large number of > >>> commits > >>>>>> there > >>>>>>>>> was a > >>>>>>>>>>> suggestion not to use the usual "Squash and Merge". The > >>> only > >>>>>> option > >>>>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>>>>> be "Rebase and Merge" since merging with a merge commit is > >>> not > >>>>>>> enabled > >>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>> the project. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> *Squash and Merge* - The commits from this branch will be > >>>>> combined > >>>>>>>>> into > >>>>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>>>> commit in the base branch (With all the commit messages > >>>>> combined) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> *Rebase and Merge* - The commits from this branch will be > >>>>> rebased > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> added > >>>>>>>>>>> to the base branch > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The PR is over 250+ commits (Github won't show all of > >> them) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts about how we should handle the merge? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>> Carin > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> >
