Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:86336
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain belski.net from 85.214.73.107 cause and error)
To: "'Stanislav Malyshev'" <smalyshev@gmail.com>,
	"'Remi Collet'" <remi@fedoraproject.org>,
	<internals@lists.php.net>
References: <555D864F.10808@fedoraproject.org> <555D88FA.70009@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <555D88FA.70009@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 10:00:23 +0200
Message-ID: <003501d0939c$333336c0$9999a440$@belski.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQKtQ/kZ7ZRaaTHGaVe5mViMMdP/yQJRmZynm7ohp8A=
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] About merging Pull Request workflow
From: anatol.php@belski.net ("Anatol Belski")



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:smalyshev@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:28 AM
> To: Remi Collet; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] About merging Pull Request workflow
>=20
> Hi!
>=20
> > Current workflow described in
> > https://wiki.php.net/vcs/gitworkflow#merge_a_pull_request
> >
> > Problem, git history only give info about a "merge"
>=20
> If you merge from a pull, the history should contain both original =
commit and
> the merge commit. So you know both who created the patch and who =
merged
> it. At least for me it always did. Unless you use some special tricks =
to edit the
> history, such as --no-commit.
>=20

I've just made an exercise as I wanted to backport that PR to 5.5. So I =
went by Remi's way. As "git am" worked cleanly, I've just pushed it. =
Result - the original author credit is kept, the person who did "git am" =
is the commiter, no merge commit.

Plus, IMO a big plus  - the commits from the PR are put on the top. Say =
if there's a branch with commits made a year ago, those commits won't be =
seen with the current approach from the wiki. They'll be possibly too =
far in the history.=20

So all in all, Remi's suggestion sounds eligible. Credits held, commiter =
is recorded, cleaner history and commits on the top as a bonus :) If we =
could integrate it with the current github automatics, that were an =
improvement, IMHO.

Regards

Anatol