Automatic commit squashing

[Horacio Duran]

On second thought, this might be a problem for feature branches but we can
device a way to tell the bot that something is a fb

On Thursday, 16 June 2016, Horacio Duran <horacio.duran at canonical.com>
wrote:

> +1 on Dave's suggestion
>
> On Thursday, 16 June 2016, David Cheney <david.cheney at canonical.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','david.cheney at canonical.com');>> wrote:
>
>> Counter suggestion: the bot refuses to accept PR's that contain more
>> than one commit, then it's up to the submitter to prepare it in any
>> way that they feel appropriate.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:44 PM, roger peppe <roger.peppe at canonical.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Squashed commits are nice, but there's something worth watching
>> > out for: currently the merge commit is committed with the text
>> > that's in the github PR, but when a squashed commit is made, this
>> > text is ignored and only the text in the actual proposed commit ends up
>> > in the history. This surprised me (I often edit the PR description
>> > as the review continues) so worth being aware of, I think.
>> >
>> >   cheers,
>> >     rog.
>> >
>> > On 16 June 2016 at 02:12, Menno Smits <menno.smits at canonical.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Hi everyone,
>> >>
>> >> Following on from the recent thread about commit squashing and commit
>> >> message quality, the idea of automatically squashing commit at merge
>> time
>> >> has been raised. The idea is that the merge bot would automatically
>> squash
>> >> commits for a pull request into a single commit, using the PR
>> description as
>> >> the commit message.
>> >>
>> >> With this in place, developers can commit locally using any approach
>> they
>> >> prefer. The smaller commits they make as they work won't be part of the
>> >> history the team interacts with in master.
>> >>
>> >> When using autosquashing the quality of pull request descriptions
>> should get
>> >> even more scrutiny during reviews. The quality of PR descriptions is
>> already
>> >> important as they are used for merge commits but with autosquashing in
>> place
>> >> they will be the *only* commit message.
>> >>
>> >> Autosquashing can be achieved technically by either having the merge
>> bot do
>> >> the squashing itself, or by taking advantage of Github's feature to do
>> this
>> >> (currently in preview mode):
>> >>
>> >> https://developer.github.com/changes/2016-04-01-squash-api-preview/
>> >>
>> >> We need to ensure that the squashed commits are attributed to the
>> correct
>> >> author (i.e. not jujubot). I'm not sure what we do with pull requests
>> which
>> >> contain work from multiple authors. There doesn't seem to be an
>> established
>> >> approach for this.
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts?
>> >>
>> >> - Menno
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Juju-dev mailing list
>> >> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
>> >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Juju-dev mailing list
>> > Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
>> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>
>> --
>> Juju-dev mailing list
>> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20160616/5a219a74/attachment-0001.html>