Are we sure that this is due to lacking permissions and not because of some technical limitation? If we are certain, we can ask out mentors to create a ticket with Apache Infra to make that switch.
-Marco Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 29. Sep. 2018, 01:17: > I made a test regular merge commit into a copy of master. It seemed to go > fine. Here is a listing of what it will look like for everyone. > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commits/test-merge-julia-import > > Although, I would be happy to push the merge button. I think the most > important thing is to get the PR merged, so whatever way is the best to > make that happen, let's do it. > > So - Does the regular merge seem like a good option? > If so, what is the best way to make that happen? > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 6:05 PM Chiyuan Zhang <plus...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Agreed with Pedro. Maybe the merge-commit option from the github > interface > > was disabled for a reason. But as Pedro said, maybe it is good to > > temporarily enable it for this PR and merge using that. > > > > > > - It should be technically easier than rebasing due to the > > git-subtree-import issue we are currently having > > - It also avoid stacking a huge commit history on *top* of current > > history > > - The downside is probably the history of the project is not linear > > anymore, but I think this is actually what we would like to have for > > this > > particular case, because the contents of the main repo and the julia > > branch > > actually does not overlap. So it makes sense to have two tails with > > their > > own history. > > > > Carin: I guess if someone with admin permission on the github could > > temporarily enable the merge-commit option, then pushing the button on > the > > web might simply work. > > > > Best, > > Chiyuan > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:53 PM Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Pedro - Maybe a merge commit is a better answer in this case. I > > originally > > > ruled it out since it wasn't an option in the github web interface, but > > > since this looks like it is going to have to be done outside it because > > of > > > the subtrees anyway, it might be a better fit. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:07 PM Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
