On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Subramanya Sastry <ssas...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > (b) Commit amends hide evolution of an idea and the tradeoffs and > considerations that went into development of something -- the reviews are > all separate from git commit history. All that is seen is the final > amended commit -- the discussion and the arguments even that inform the > commit are lost. Instead, if as in (a), a topic branch was explicitly (or > automatically created when a reviewer rejects a commit), and fixes are > additional commits, then, review documentation could be part of the commit > history of git and shows the considerations that went into developing > something and the evolution of an idea. > > There was an email recently on wikitext-l where Mark Bergsma was asked to > squash his commits (http://osdir.com/ml/general/2012-07/msg20847.html) -- I > personally think it is a bad idea that is a result of the gerrit review > model. In a different review model, a suggestion like this would not be > made. > Although squashing and amending has downsides, there is also an advantage: now that Jenkins is set up properly for mediawiki/core.git , we will never put commits in master that don't pass the tests. With the fixup commit model, intermediate commits often won't pass the tests or even lint, which leads to false positives in git bisect and makes things like rolling back deployments harder.
Roan _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
