Could you upload the picture somewhere please? HTML is being stripped out on email lists.
Chiyuan Zhang <plus...@gmail.com> schrieb am So., 30. Sep. 2018, 03:44: > There is an option in the repo settings menu to disable or enable > merge-commit for PR, see a screenshot below (from a different github > project): > > [image: image.png] > > My guess is that this is disabled for the reason to avoid creating > non-linear history for standard PRs (as oppose to technical problem). But > this is only my guess, it would be great if someone could confirm. > > Best, > Chiyuan > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 3:50 AM Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I believe so, but if someone wants to confirm it would be great. >> Unfortunately, I just came down with a cold/flu so I will be out of >> communication for a bit >> >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:51 PM Marco de Abreu >> <marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: >> >> > 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 >> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> >> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> >> > > > > >> >>>>>>> >> > > > > >> >>>>>> >> > > > > >> >>>>> >> > > > > >> >>>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
