Hi Gianmarco, I see your point. The convention we usually follow on Flink is to work on an issue on a specific branch and tag the commits with the issue id. Since we always rebase to the apache master all these commits are just pushed up consecutively as one block of changes that solves an issue so it is in a way clear what all of them address as well as who did which part and the logical process until the issue got solved. During cleanup on a PR we usually squash many of these commits together, especially when they address more or less the same part of the issue.
Preserving authorship has also other benefits I think, it gives a good first impression on a project that many people are involved and motivates new contributors to leave their mark. Perhaps later on when you get more contributors it will be good to switch to that scheme, but as you mentioned, it is not a big deal at the moment. cheers Paris > On 05 Jun 2015, at 14:33, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Paris, > > It is intended. Usually the git history of a PR is quite messy and reflects > the local process of development, so we rewrite the history of the PR to > contain a single commit linked to the JIRA issue that it is solving. This > creates a clear logical flow of improvements to the project. Reverting a > single PR/patch/Jira becomes much easier. Also understanding difference > between releases becomes easier. > The downside, as you pointed out, is that we lose authorship information. > We try to remedy to that by including the name of the original contributor > in the log of the commit. > > We don't directly use the commit history to keep track of > contributors/development, so it doesn't matter that much to us right now. > > Given that we are just starting out, I am curious to hear about your and > Flink's experience with the process. > Do you have a strong motivation to keep the history of the PR as is? How do > you deal with the history of the project at large? > > Cheres, > > -- > Gianmarco > > On 5 June 2015 at 12:13, Paris Carbone <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello again Samoers! >> >> >> I was just wondering whether there is a reason you do not preserve the git >> history/authors when merging in the apache repo. Is it intended or a >> technical issue? >> >> From a first look in the commit history someone could guess that there are >> only 2-3 contributors in the whole project. >> >> >> cheers >> >> Paris? >> >>
