- From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 11:47:05 -0800
- To: David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>
- Cc: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>, Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com>, "Jerry Smith (WINDOWS)" <jdsmith@microsoft.com>
- Message-ID: <CAEnTvdA5yC6r=ac78ww=M+C7orA=T6wV0M1dtSnqLcKbXvfQDw@mail.gmail.com>
I find that when following this procedure with a PR / branch which has been kept up-to-date with other changes on gh-pages (via merges into the branch), then the rebase step encounters many conflicts. I think the problem is that rebasing attempts to replay the changes in the branch on the head of gh-pages. The older commits in the branch contain changes against an older version of gh-pages and these do not replay cleanly. Is this expected ? Any ideas how to avoid this ? ...Mark On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:04 PM, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> wrote: > This is now documented in more detail at > https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/blob/gh-pages/TEAM.md > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:52 AM, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> wrote: > >> I just tested this proposal on a couple of my pull requests. It's >> slightly more work, but it seemed to work well. >> >> The scripts from https://github.com/whatwg/html/blob/master/TEAM.md need >> to be updated to replace "master" with "gh-pages" as below. After running >> "pr <pr#> and pushing, I copied the commit SHA, wrote a comment that said >> "Merged as <SHA>." and clicked the "Close pull request" button to post that >> comment. >> >> >> pr () { >> git fetch origin refs/pull/$1/head:refs/remotes/origin/pr/$1 --force >> git checkout -b pr/$1 origin/pr/$1 >> git rebase gh-pages >> git checkout gh-pages >> git merge pr/$1 --ff-only >> } >> >> mypr () { >> git checkout $1 >> git rebase gh-pages >> git push origin $1 --force >> git checkout gh-pages >> git merge $1 --ff-only >> } >> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:50 AM, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> *New proposal:* Use the same process being followed for the HTML spec >>> <https://github.com/whatwg/html> as documented at >>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/blob/master/TEAM.md. >>> >>> Most importantly, "The green button shall not be pushed. Each change >>> needs to result in a single commit on the master branch, with no merge >>> commits." The page provides some scripts that are useful for manually >>> merging pull requests. These appear to preserve the original author while >>> adding a single commit as can be seen at >>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/commits/master. >>> >>> For pull requests with multiple commits, squashing with git rebase -i >>> may still be required after running the pr script. >>> >>> >>> *Background/Motivation* >>> >>> After following the previous proposal, Mark wrote >>> <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/86#issuecomment-139569822> >>> : >>> >>>> Hmm, whilst there is only one commit in the PR, I see two in the main >>>> repository now it is merged - the commit from the PR and the merge. Is that >>>> correct ? >>>> >>> >>> He's referring to this: >>> >>> 1. [image: @mwatson2] <https://github.com/mwatson2> >>> >>> Merge pull request >>> <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/commit/49b98d2d77a63b1d3bb99d8a122b5370f709f870> >>> #90 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/90> from >>> mwatson2/issue-86 >>> <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/commit/49b98d2d77a63b1d3bb99d8a122b5370f709f870> >>> … <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/commits/gh-pages#> >>> mwatson2 >>> <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/commits/gh-pages?author=mwatson2> authored 3 >>> hours ago >>> 49b98d2 >>> <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/commit/49b98d2d77a63b1d3bb99d8a122b5370f709f870> >>> >>> <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/tree/49b98d2d77a63b1d3bb99d8a122b5370f709f870> >>> 2. [image: @mwatson2] <https://github.com/mwatson2> >>> >>> Fix >>> <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/commit/e5c8d2c8a2db32b65f46c49442eb4c31dff69bbd> >>> #86 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/86>: Rename >>> 'tracked' session type to 'persistent-usage-record' >>> <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/commit/e5c8d2c8a2db32b65f46c49442eb4c31dff69bbd> >>> mwatson2 >>> <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/commits/gh-pages?author=mwatson2> authored 8 >>> days ago >>> e5c8d2c >>> <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/commit/e5c8d2c8a2db32b65f46c49442eb4c31dff69bbd> >>> >>> <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/tree/e5c8d2c8a2db32b65f46c49442eb4c31dff69bbd> >>> >>> This is how GitHub and the “Merge pull request” button work. Two >>> consecutive commits is better than an unsquashed disjoint history, but it >>> still adds clutter. Many projects believe this is ugly and thus avoid using >>> the button. >>> >>> Other policies and solutions: >>> >>> - >>> http://blog.spreedly.com/2014/06/24/merge-pull-request-considered-harmful/ >>> - >>> http://django.readthedocs.org/en/latest/internals/contributing/committing-code.html >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:13 AM, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> GitHub pull requests are a great tool, but they can also complicate the >>>> commit log. What once was a relatively linear commit history can become a >>>> mess of parallel "branches" over long periods of time. This is most obvious >>>> in tools like gitk, but the GitHub history is also confusing because the >>>> commits from a single pull request may be scattered throughout the commit >>>> log. >>>> >>>> This is most important for merges from upstream into the pull request >>>> as the author keeps the branch up-to-date. These merges appear as commits >>>> in the history once the pull request is merged. However, updates based on >>>> review feedback or fixing spelling also appear as separate commits, which >>>> can make it hard to see exactly what was committed. >>>> >>>> See http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/263172 for additional >>>> explanation. >>>> >>>> >>>> I propose: >>>> >>>> To minimize the impact, please squash all commits in a pull request >>>> into a single commit before merging it. Committers (editors) should make >>>> sure commits have been squashed before merging their own or others' pull >>>> requests. >>>> >>>> There will be exceptions. For example, sometimes a pull request might >>>> have multiple distinct actions (i.e. do something then rename a variable), >>>> in which case the branch might be squashed into two commits. >>>> >>>> >>>> Details: >>>> The squashing happens in the branch and updates the pull request before >>>> it is merged. Thus, you should be able to view the results in GitHub before >>>> merging into the mainline. Most of the magic happens with "git rebase -i >>>> <base-commit>" on your local repository. Be sure to pick the right >>>> base-commit for <base-commit>. (For merges, this appears to be the master >>>> branch.) Then, you need to (force) push your changes to GitHub. >>>> >>>> The one drawback is that the previous commits are wiped from the commit >>>> history for your branch. That means the review history and comments are no >>>> longer browsable (as far as I can tell). They appear to still be available >>>> if you have the URLs, though. Thus, if you want to maintain history, it >>>> might make sense to create a new branch and/or pull request with the >>>> squashed commit. >>>> >>>> Note: You can also fix commit messages using the "reword" feature of >>>> "git rebase -i". For example, if you forgot to refer to the issue number. >>>> >>>> References: >>>> >>>> - http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/263172 >>>> - >>>> https://github.com/ginatrapani/todo.txt-android/wiki/Squash-All-Commits-Related-to-a-Single-Issue-into-a-Single-Commit >>>> - >>>> https://github.com/edx/edx-platform/wiki/How-to-Rebase-a-Pull-Request >>>> - >>>> http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2014/02/19/squashing-github-pull-requests-into-a-single-commit >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2015 19:47:37 UTC