Hi, Am Sonntag, den 10.05.2020, 09:43 +0100 schrieb Neil C Smith: > On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 22:46, Matthias Bläsing < > mblaes...@doppel-helix.eu> wrote: > > I suggest to disable the squash-and-merge und rebase-and-merge > > buttons: > > I'm -0 to -1 on this change. It has the potential to increase the > headache for contributions, committers and release managers. Is it > really necessary?
>From my POV yes - else I would have not written the mail. Yes it is more work, so what? Testing, Evaluating is still more. > What exactly are the problems and concerns here? I understand the > immediate issue, and GitHub behaviour isn't ideal (it looks like > they're actually working on improvements to it). But what exactly > are > the ramifications for us? My problem is 1. the original behaviour _removes_ author information from the commit - for me this alone is a huge problem 2. the new behaviour replaces authorship claims. To be frank this is even more messed up. The committer is _not_ the author, even if he squashed and merges. > After the discussion on the test PR, I tried to find if this issue > had > been raised elsewhere around ASF. I didn't find anything specific, > but did find quite a few infra issues from projects requesting that > Squash and Merge be their *only* option. How are they handling it? > Why do they feel it works for them when we don't feel it works for > us? Maybe they are not interested in authorship or are only let people create PRs, that are committers themselfs. The problem does not exist (or in a much smaller way) when Comitter == Author. But git explicitly allows the distinction of the two and github messes that up. > If tracing authorship of contributions is the only concern, there is > also the fact that the commit is not the only (or canonical) record > of > this - there is the pull request and associated email trail that is > archived by ASF for this reason. Does this provide all the > additional > information required? Sorry but this stupid. Git can hold the correct metadata: - who authored - who committed The problem is, that github destroys that information (and no squash- and-merge with a mix of committers is a IMHO a bad idea). > Does manual squashing and merging still fall foul of the problem with > PRs not being marked as merged, so missing that part of the audit > trail too? Yes it has its own drawbacks, but the commits should still be tied to the JIRA issue, so there is a line back, but the information in the commit itself is correct. I totally have no problem to require authors to squash their commits and create a sane history, but that is indeed a different discussion. This discussion is intended only to cover the broken squash-and-merge behaviour of github. Greetings Matthias --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists