I don't have a strong opinion about this, and as Gianmarco I'm happy to follow what the community thinks is better.
Albert On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Gyula Fóra <[email protected]> wrote: > Alright I will make the changes to the wiki over the weekend. > > As a side note, a PR often contains commits from multiple authors (for > example in the case of the flink adapter) in which case your argument > doesn't really hold. > > Gyula > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 12:57 PM Gianmarco De Francisci Morales < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I disagree that the traceability is a problem. There is a 1:1 mapping > > between a Jira and a PR and the mapping is kept in the commit log > history. > > SVN based project have been working like this for a while. > > > > > > > > > > That said, I don't really have a strong opinion about this policy and I'm > > happy to follow what the community thinks is better, and follow the > example > > of other Apache projects. > > > > > > > > > > Gyula, would you like to make the necessary changes to the contributor > > guidelines in the wiki? > > > > I guess the main requirements would be linear history, tagging the > commits > > with the Jira ID, and closing off the GitHub PR automatically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gdfm > > > > > > On Friday 26 Jun 2015 at 13:54, Gyula Fóra <[email protected]>, wrote: > > Hey, > > > > > > I would like to revive an older discussion about you policy for merging > > > > PR-s. > > > > > > I think the current way of squashing all commits in the PR and removing > > > > history and authorship of the commits, is very bad and will cause serious > > > > problems for the whole project. > > > > > > There are multiple problems here: > > > > > > 1. There is absolutely no reason to have this policy. Large projects > > > > large contributor base still keep the commits of individual > > contributors, > > > > and they only expect the contributors to rebase on the master to keep > > the > > > > history linear. This way the commits in one PR are still in one place > > and > > > > the changes become more tracable for the smaller commits. > > > > 2. This policy will drive off many would-be contributors as no-one > want > > > > to put a lot of work into a new feature when he will not be even noted > > as a > > > > contributor on git. I think this is actually a major concern, I didnt > > > > conduct any surveys but I think at least half of the people will not > > > > contribute this way :P > > > > 3. Since the contributors don't show on git, there is no sign of > > > > community activity which will again drive off many new contributors. > > (2+3) > > > > will drive off most people I believe. > > > > > > I think in order to get a larger community, this needs to change for > future > > > > contributions. I am not sure what to do about past contributors. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Gyula >
