On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 1:01 PM Amar Tumballi <amar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for taking time on this, and sending this note Xavi!Some comments inline!On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 4:03 PM Xavi Hernandez <xhernandez@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi all,after the recent switch to GitHub, I've seen that reviews that require multiple iterations are hard to follow using the old workflow we were using in Gerrit.Till now we basically amended the commit and pushed it again. Gerrit had a feature to calculate diffs between versions of the patch, so it was relatively easy to follow the changes between iterations (unless there was a big change in the base branch and the patch was rebased).In GitHub we don't have this feature (at least I haven't seen it). So I'm proposing to change this workflow.The idea is to create a PR with the initial commit. When a modification needs to be done as a result of the review, instead of amending the existing commit, we should create a new commit. From the review tool in GitHub it's very easy to check individual commits.+1Once the review is finished, the patch will be merged with the "Squash and Merge" option, that will combine all the commits into a single one before merging, so the end result will be exactly the same we had with Gerrit.+1Just a note to the maintainers who are merging PRs to have patience and check the commit message when there are more than 1 commits in PR.
Well, just to _check_ it by the maintainer won't suffice; when there are several commits are in the PR, Github's prefilled default message just consists of a list of the individual commits, so the maintainer will have to actively edit the commit message to restore the original one. (See
).
And that's unambiguous only if the commit message is not intended to change throughout the amendments.
What should be the protocol when the developer wants to update the commit message? With the force push single commit approach, the commit message gets updated and reused for the upstream commit too (see also above link), so there is nowhere to get it wrong. For multi-commit pr, there should be specific instructions for commit message editing to not get it wrong.
Another thing to consider is that rfc.sh script always does a rebase before pushing changes. This rewrites history and changes all commits of a PR. I think we shouldn't do a rebase in rfc.sh. Only if there are conflicts, I would do a manual rebase and push the changes.With github workflow, we don't need './rfc.sh' in my personal opinion. I ported it to new branch and github considering the number of developers who are used to it. If you do the changes as per github, then you would have a separate branch per PR (ie, feature/bug), so you are at your own to decide when to rebase.What do you think ?I agree, we can remove -f option of ./rfc.sh and also the rebase part in ./rfc.sh!Regards,Amar--Regards,Xavi
Regards
Csaba
_______________________________________________ Community Meeting Calendar: Schedule - Every 2nd and 4th Tuesday at 14:30 IST / 09:00 UTC Bridge: https://bluejeans.com/441850968 Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
