I’ve noticed quite a few PRs in the last week that were merged with “Merge” rather than “Squash and Merge”.
While the community consensus was to continue to allow all merge options, please try to default to “Squash and Merge” whenever you can to keep history as linear as possible. GitHub will save the last method you used in a cookie, which helps, but then it’s easy to miss when it resets itself back to the default of “Merge” some months later because you cleared cookies, changed browsers, etc. > On Oct 22, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Nabarun Nag <n...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > Hi Geode Committers, > > A kind request for using squash commit instead of using merge. > This will really help us in our bisect operations when a regression/flakiness > in the product is introduced. We can automate and go through fewer commits > faster, avoiding commits like "spotless fix" and "re-trigger precheck-in" or > other minor commits in the merged branch. > > Also, please use the commit format : (helps us to know who worked on it, what > is the history) > GEODE-xxxx: <brief intro > > > * explanation line 1 > * explanation line 2 > > This is not a rule or anything, but a request to help out your fellow > committers in quickly detecting a problem. > > For inspiration, we can look into Apache Kafka / Spark where they have a > complete linear graph for their main branch HEAD [see attachment] > > Regards > Naba. > >
