sounds good! +1
Regards,
Da
> On Jul 17, 2019, at 7:32 PM, Dinesh Chitlangia
> <dchitlan...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> +1, this is certainly useful.
>
> Thank you,
> Dinesh
>
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:04 PM Akira Ajisaka <aajis...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Makes sense, +1
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:01 AM Sangjin Lee <sj...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1. Sounds good to me.
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:20 AM Iñigo Goiri <elgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 4:17 AM Steve Loughran
>> <ste...@cloudera.com.invalid
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 for squash and merge, with whoever does the merge adding the full
>>>> commit
>>>>> message for the logs, with JIRA, contributor(s) etc
>>>>>
>>>>> One limit of the github process is that the author of the commit
>> becomes
>>>>> whoever hit the squash button, not whoever did the code, so it loses
>> the
>>>>> credit they are due. This is why I'm doing local merges (With some
>> help
>>>>> from smart-apply-patch). I think I'll have to explore
>> smart-apply-patch
>>>> to
>>>>> see if I can do even more with it
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 7:07 AM Elek, Marton <e...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Github UI (ui!) helps to merge Pull Requests to the proposed
>> branch.
>>>>>> There are three different ways to do it [1]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Keep all the different commits from the PR branch and create one
>>>>>> additional merge commit ("Create a merge commit")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Squash all the commits and commit the change as one patch
>> ("Squash
>>>>>> and merge")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Keep all the different commits from the PR branch but rebase,
>> merge
>>>>>> commit will be missing ("Rebase and merge")
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As only the option 2 is compatible with the existing development
>>>>>> practices of Hadoop (1 issue = 1 patch = 1 commit), I call for a
>> lazy
>>>>>> consensus vote: If no objections withing 3 days, I will ask INFRA
>> to
>>>>>> disable the options 1 and 3 to make the process less error prone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let me know, what do you think,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks a lot
>>>>>> Marton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ps: Personally I prefer to merge from local as it enables to sign
>> the
>>>>>> commits and do a final build before push. But this is a different
>>>> story,
>>>>>> this proposal is only about removing the options which are
>> obviously
>>>>>> risky...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ps2: You can always do any kind of merge / commits from CLI, for
>>>> example
>>>>>> to merge a feature branch together with keeping the history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://help.github.com/en/articles/merging-a-pull-request#merging-a-pull-request-on-github
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
