On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 9:53 AM Jean-Luc Deprez <jeanluc.dep...@gmail.com> wrote: > My personal stance: > > 1. No, because it's not the Git way and because of #4 > 2. Allowed yes, but only when it makes sense, it should not be the > default way. > 3. No, because #4. > Local rebasing (and squashing in the process) is still possible. But > that will have clear committer tags and signatures. > 4. Yes, traceability of changes has relevance in this modern day and age.
If we want signatures we cannot allow squashing, so 2. seems a bit inconsistent... I argued both ways in the ticket but one very important practical consideration is that requiring signatures means that we 1. require contributors to contribute full commits (because there can only be one signature per commit) 2. commits that would logically stand alone cannot be authored by multiple persons (the result of a squash) 1. is often a problem in practice because it means that we require that all fixes to PRs have to be ultimately done by the original contributors. Often this leads to stalled contributions because a contributor couldn't be bothered to do the final minor fixups necessary for merging. The only way to resolve that by merging would be to add additional fixup commits which makes dealing with the history later on difficult. The trade-off is basically between using commits as standalone changes in terms of functionality or as standalone pieces of ownership. I much prefer the first notion. Johannes --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pekko.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@pekko.apache.org
