search for: squashing

...;squashed" mode for pull requests now, I >> haven't tested in practice but it may help. > IMHO squashed commits are a bad idea from a bisect perspective. One of > the great benefits of git is the easy of creating small, > logically-independent commits that can be bisected. Squashing > eliminates that advantage. > > An automatic rebase of the branch and fast-forward merge would be a fine > way to maintain linear history. I have no idea how/if GitHub supports > that though. > > -David Squashing or not depends a lot on personal wo...

...changes are not squashed into existing commits, but pushed on top. The squash is best performed when landing the changes. Disagree. I usually want to be able to review the actual commits that will be landed, not some imagined combination that may or may not line up with what the author will end up squashing things to. Remember, the goal is for authors to be able to have a review of multiple commits in a patch series, i.e. Patch 1 Patch 2 ... and then make changes to both of those patches based on reviews. If you just push delta commits, then in the best case, if people properly use `git commi...

...e commits. Not that I am opposed to such commits, but > I am concerned with continual force pushes to PR branches. A "final history > clean-up" after reviews are done is okay in my book. > > >> , let people decide, continue encouraging decent commit messages and >> squashing final review changes. >> > From the above, I take it to mean that this "squashing" you mean last here > is about rewriting the history (if not using GitHub's "squash and merge") > before using GitHub's "rebase and merge"? > > >> cheer...

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:56:28PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > > Hi Rusty, all > > > > I parked outstanding virtio patches here: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git vhost-next > > this way they are merged in linux-next as well. > > > > Rusty if you'll be

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:56:28PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > > Hi Rusty, all > > > > I parked outstanding virtio patches here: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git vhost-next > > this way they are merged in linux-next as well. > > > > Rusty if you'll be

...review changes the series consistently, it could give rise to a few more meaningful commits, with decent messages on their own. No rules broken there. So, in a nutshell, review/approval like current phab, restrict to rebase/squash, let people decide, continue encouraging decent commit messages and squashing final review changes. cheers, --renato -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200911/4797073a/attachment.html>

...;> commits, but I am concerned with continual force pushes to PR branches. A >>> "final history clean-up" after reviews are done is okay in my book. >>> >>> >>>> , let people decide, continue encouraging decent commit messages and >>>> squashing final review changes. >>>> >>> From the above, I take it to mean that this "squashing" you mean last >>> here is about rewriting the history (if not using GitHub's "squash and >>> merge") before using GitHub's "rebase and merge...

> On Jun 2, 2016, at 11:03 AM, dag at cray.com wrote: > > Tim Northover via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > >> On 31 May 2016 at 13:45, Mehdi Amini via lldb-dev >> <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> Apparently I wasn't very clear: llvm and clang (and the others >>> projects) would be simple decoupled, individual git

The LLVM incubator projects have been using github PRs for reviews and so far haven't really seen any significant issues. The biggest confusion so far has not been with reviews but with the difference between "rebase and merge" and "squash and mere". We have used basically 3 different processes: Method 1: start a review with one commit on a new branch (typically in a

...work on or with LLVM for many reasons. The most cited ones are the modern code base, the liberal BSD like license and the modularity. Around LLVM a large ecosystem was built that includes subprojects like dragonegg, vmkit, Polly, libc++, safecode and many more. o What is the LLVM Meetup and Bug Squashing? It is a casual meetup to get to know people working on LLVM or interested to learn about LLVM. There is no fixed schedule. We just meet to get to know each other and to discuss. No previous knowledge about LLVM is required. This time we meet at IRILL, where we will have plenty of tables, whi...

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 16:09, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > The question is if everything is approved and the author does a final > cleanup as alluded to above, does that final cleanup also need to go > through review? We don't enforce that now, so I see no reason to start doing it. Phab reviews, once approved, can have last-minute modifications and direct commits.

Looks like we are better off sticking with the misaligned stat struct, to reduce the amount of virtio 1 specific code in balloon. So let's do it. Add a detailed comment to reduce the chance people copy this bad example. This also fixes a bug on BE architectures: tag should use cpu_to_le16, not cpu_to_le32. Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael

So, I am starting to code this CAS block squashing test and I am wondering if this is something that would more likely extend open Solaris (it does require additional info in zfs metadata that is currently reserved space for future, ie zfs revision++) or if I should code against the FUSE tree where it would could be imported. What type of contribu...

Looks like we are better off sticking with the misaligned stat struct, to reduce the amount of virtio 1 specific code in balloon. So let's do it. Add a detailed comment to reduce the chance people copy this bad example. This also fixes a bug on BE architectures: tag should use cpu_to_le16, not cpu_to_le32. Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael

Leading up to the upcoming orphan removal in EPEL, the EPEL Steering Committee is organizing a Bug Squashing Day. There are 3 main purposes to this day: 1. Identifying owners willing to take over orphaned packages 2. Bug triage, feedback, or fixing various bugs through patch submission, etc. 3. Last but not least, we'll be covering the testing of various packages which need feedback. Additionally it...

...ted patch is not upstream yet, right? > > > > I don't know if the tree in question allows rebases - linux-next > > > > does. So ideally it would be squashed to avoid issues during bisect. > > > > Still it's error path so I guess not a tragedy even without squashing. > > > > > > I tend to not rebase once stuff has been in linux-next but I make > > > exceptions as long as it's before -rc4. For now I've put the patch on > > > top (see the other mail I sent) but if it's really important I can > > > squash...

Hello just learned HowTo but R, reminded me with the way Perl does it but with much less on-line commands, R "AFAIK" has n, c, Q and where and cann't debug outside the {}. 1) is there a more versatile/flexable debugging method for R? I have saved 2 functions in an ASCII file "digfun". "getdata" function calls "squash" function and both use loops. In

Has anyone tried out reviewable.io yet? It integrates with GitHub pull requests, but provides a separate UI for doing the review which promises to fix a lot of the issues encountered with Github's review interface. Some of the things it claims to support which seem like important additions: - Tracking the resolved status of each discussion point - Rebasing a PR without losing review history.

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 11:22:57AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2020/4/2 ??12:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:29:32PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > >From 9b3a5d23b8bf6b0a11e65e688335d782f8e6aa5c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> > > > Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 22:17:27 +0800 >

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 11:22:57AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2020/4/2 ??12:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:29:32PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > >From 9b3a5d23b8bf6b0a11e65e688335d782f8e6aa5c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> > > > Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 22:17:27 +0800 >