commit style

[Jay Kreps <ja...@gmail.com>]

We have been using sort of different git styles. I think Chris has been
checking in rapidly. I do lots of quick commits but then rebase it into one
giant patch for review.

Do we have a preference? I am fine either way. For code review the quick
commit style is actually nicer because the git format-patch command will
then actually show the original patch plus the changes made in response to
feedback each as different commits. The problem with this is that your
history gets pretty hard to understand. The big patch way gives a very
clean version of history but makes code review a bit harder.

I am cool with either or both.

Not sure how git format-patch interacts with review board...

-Jay

Re: commit style

[Chris Riccomini <cr...@linkedin.com>]

Hey Guys,

Sounds pretty unanimous. Squashing for JIRA, RB, and commits. Anyone else
have any feedback? Otherwise I'd say, case closed.

Cheers,
Chris

On 8/16/13 9:48 PM, "Jakob Homan" <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>RB can diff between patches (so you can just look at what's happened
>between v1 and v2, for instance).  I don't believe this will work if the
>patches are non-squashed.
>
>Not squashing on commit will be a real pain in the (under RTC) rare
>occurences we need to revert patches.  For non-major changes, ie those
>that
>would warrant a separate development branch in Subversion-land, I find
>unsquashed commits just introduce a lot of noise that doesn't add to the
>record.  It'd be nice if git could 'zoom out' and only show the
>intermediate commits when asked.  I'd recommend squashing.
>
>
>On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Chris Riccomini
><cr...@linkedin.com>wrote:
>
>> Hey Guys,
>>
>> Reading over:
>>
>>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SAMZA-14
>>
>> I definitely prefer a squashed .patch on JIRA, and a squashed RB, as
>>well.
>> The un-squashed v2 patch on SAMZA-14 is a bit hard to follow.
>>
>> Whether we squash them on commit, I'm undecided on.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>> On 8/15/13 4:41 PM, "Chris Riccomini" <cr...@linkedin.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hey Jay,
>> >
>> >Good point.
>> >
>> >I suspect RB will prefer the squashed style. I think JIRA will prefer
>>this
>> >as well (SAMZA-14.0.patch), right? What do other projects do?
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >Chris
>> >
>> >On 8/15/13 4:36 PM, "Jay Kreps" <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>We have been using sort of different git styles. I think Chris has
>>been
>> >>checking in rapidly. I do lots of quick commits but then rebase it
>>into
>> >>one
>> >>giant patch for review.
>> >>
>> >>Do we have a preference? I am fine either way. For code review the
>>quick
>> >>commit style is actually nicer because the git format-patch command
>>will
>> >>then actually show the original patch plus the changes made in
>>response
>> >>to
>> >>feedback each as different commits. The problem with this is that your
>> >>history gets pretty hard to understand. The big patch way gives a very
>> >>clean version of history but makes code review a bit harder.
>> >>
>> >>I am cool with either or both.
>> >>
>> >>Not sure how git format-patch interacts with review board...
>> >>
>> >>-Jay
>> >
>>
>>

Re: commit style

[Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com>]

RB can diff between patches (so you can just look at what's happened
between v1 and v2, for instance).  I don't believe this will work if the
patches are non-squashed.

Not squashing on commit will be a real pain in the (under RTC) rare
occurences we need to revert patches.  For non-major changes, ie those that
would warrant a separate development branch in Subversion-land, I find
unsquashed commits just introduce a lot of noise that doesn't add to the
record.  It'd be nice if git could 'zoom out' and only show the
intermediate commits when asked.  I'd recommend squashing.


On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Chris Riccomini <cr...@linkedin.com>wrote:

> Hey Guys,
>
> Reading over:
>
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SAMZA-14
>
> I definitely prefer a squashed .patch on JIRA, and a squashed RB, as well.
> The un-squashed v2 patch on SAMZA-14 is a bit hard to follow.
>
> Whether we squash them on commit, I'm undecided on.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> On 8/15/13 4:41 PM, "Chris Riccomini" <cr...@linkedin.com> wrote:
>
> >Hey Jay,
> >
> >Good point.
> >
> >I suspect RB will prefer the squashed style. I think JIRA will prefer this
> >as well (SAMZA-14.0.patch), right? What do other projects do?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Chris
> >
> >On 8/15/13 4:36 PM, "Jay Kreps" <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>We have been using sort of different git styles. I think Chris has been
> >>checking in rapidly. I do lots of quick commits but then rebase it into
> >>one
> >>giant patch for review.
> >>
> >>Do we have a preference? I am fine either way. For code review the quick
> >>commit style is actually nicer because the git format-patch command will
> >>then actually show the original patch plus the changes made in response
> >>to
> >>feedback each as different commits. The problem with this is that your
> >>history gets pretty hard to understand. The big patch way gives a very
> >>clean version of history but makes code review a bit harder.
> >>
> >>I am cool with either or both.
> >>
> >>Not sure how git format-patch interacts with review board...
> >>
> >>-Jay
> >
>
>

Re: commit style

[Chris Riccomini <cr...@linkedin.com>]

Hey Guys,

Reading over:

    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SAMZA-14

I definitely prefer a squashed .patch on JIRA, and a squashed RB, as well.
The un-squashed v2 patch on SAMZA-14 is a bit hard to follow.

Whether we squash them on commit, I'm undecided on.

Cheers,
Chris

On 8/15/13 4:41 PM, "Chris Riccomini" <cr...@linkedin.com> wrote:

>Hey Jay,
>
>Good point.
>
>I suspect RB will prefer the squashed style. I think JIRA will prefer this
>as well (SAMZA-14.0.patch), right? What do other projects do?
>
>Cheers,
>Chris
>
>On 8/15/13 4:36 PM, "Jay Kreps" <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>We have been using sort of different git styles. I think Chris has been
>>checking in rapidly. I do lots of quick commits but then rebase it into
>>one
>>giant patch for review.
>>
>>Do we have a preference? I am fine either way. For code review the quick
>>commit style is actually nicer because the git format-patch command will
>>then actually show the original patch plus the changes made in response
>>to
>>feedback each as different commits. The problem with this is that your
>>history gets pretty hard to understand. The big patch way gives a very
>>clean version of history but makes code review a bit harder.
>>
>>I am cool with either or both.
>>
>>Not sure how git format-patch interacts with review board...
>>
>>-Jay
>

Re: commit style

[Chris Riccomini <cr...@linkedin.com>]

Hey Jay,

Good point.

I suspect RB will prefer the squashed style. I think JIRA will prefer this
as well (SAMZA-14.0.patch), right? What do other projects do?

Cheers,
Chris

On 8/15/13 4:36 PM, "Jay Kreps" <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:

>We have been using sort of different git styles. I think Chris has been
>checking in rapidly. I do lots of quick commits but then rebase it into
>one
>giant patch for review.
>
>Do we have a preference? I am fine either way. For code review the quick
>commit style is actually nicer because the git format-patch command will
>then actually show the original patch plus the changes made in response to
>feedback each as different commits. The problem with this is that your
>history gets pretty hard to understand. The big patch way gives a very
>clean version of history but makes code review a bit harder.
>
>I am cool with either or both.
>
>Not sure how git format-patch interacts with review board...
>
>-Jay