[Geany-Devel] [RFC]: No force push policy on Github PRs

[Matthew Brush]

On 2015-07-06 11:41 PM, Thomas Martitz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> first of all, I think github should fix this problem, instead of
> enforcing a suboptimal workflow on us.
> I reported this problem to github, let's see if they respond.
>

I think I reported it before already. IIRC they said something to the 
effect of "ya we know it's a problem, we'll add it to our list of things 
to think about fixing" (paraphrasing).

> Am 07.07.2015 um 02:13 schrieb Matthew Brush:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> As anyone trying to follow Pull Requests on Github has probably
>> noticed, when you force push to your PR branch, Github deletes various
>> comments related to the PR, depending on what got clobbered (it seems).
>
> Not always. I haven't found a consistent pattern, but it seems worse
> when commits are removed.
>
>>
>> This makes it extremely difficult to keep track of and finally merge
>> PRs because issues that may have been raised are gone and it leaves
>> holes in the comments which are a useful way to make sure any issues,
>> notes, ideas, etc. have been dealt with before merging.
>>
>> In addition to the dropped comments, it makes it harder to follow the
>> changes made since it clobbers the Git history too, so you have to
>> basically review the entire changset by looking at the whole diff of
>> all files affected by the PR at once.
>
> Well, assuming an updated PR only changes stuff which has  been
> commented on before or are otherwise explicitely noted in a new comment,
> you do not have to review the entire diff again. And you have to review
> those parts of the diff you commented on again, other parts should be
> fine since they received no comment at the first review, right?
>

IMO, it's easier to review a small list of commits rather than a mega 
commit, even if there's a few little nuisance commits in it. In all 
cases if you merge something you have to review it completely, it's just 
easier, IMO, when you can kind of follow the comments interspersed with 
the commits in the order they were added. Also, if something you tested 
yesterday worked, you know that when the contributor added commits 
today, it didn't invalidate everything you had previously 
reviewed/tested, and have to now start all over.

Added to that, re-writing the history makes it a PITA for more than one 
person to contribute changes to a PR at once. IMO, we should be 
promoting that kind of thing, not making it harder.

> So it boils down to lost comments are the main problem.
>

Well it's not the only one, but definitively the one that incited this 
email about changing our (never really discussed IIRC) policy about 
re-writing history mid-PR.

>>
>> Another reason to avoid is because it makes it harder to test a PR if
>> the repos history keeps getting munged, it breaks your previous pulls.
>>
>> I propose that we disallow force pushing, rebasing, squashing, etc. on
>> any PR until it is fully ready for final merging. We could probably
>> use a label or milestone or something to signify that a PR has been
>> fully reviewed and is ready for merging. At that point it _might_ make
>> sense to fudge history and get rid of some noisy "fixup" commits[0].
>>
>
> The more fixup commits the less likely that the post-review cleanup is
> actually going to happen. The largeish linkage-cleanup branch was almost
> merged as is, and I'm sure bisection of in the middle of those commits
> is harder or even impossible.
>

IIRC it actually showed the real history of how the changes evolved and 
I assume each commit was at least moderately tested. I'd have to look 
closer to see if there were many noisy commits.

>> Thoughts, opinions?
>
> I prefer rebasing and rewriting commits, because that makes my life
> easier too. I can handle my stuff better if it has a clean history, and
> it helps me in making design decisions because I try to logically
> separate stuff in the commits.

You could still do that locally as you hack away on stuff, it's only the 
stuff you pushed to your PR branch that people are pulling from where 
you wouldn't re-write the history from underneath them (and Github).

> And merging master into my PR when the PR
> should eventually be merged into master is not acceptable for, therefore
> I rebase.
>

Why? IMO there's no big deal merging master into your work branch if 
it's long-lived enough to warrant it.

> Continuously rewriting history is common in the patch distribution via
> mailing lists so it's successfully performed elsewhere. It's really just
> github being bad at maintaining comments and that should be fixed on
> their side.
>

Mostly, but also it makes certain stuff easier for everyone. One of the 
hassles of patches is because you have to keep creating branches to 
apply them on or keep backing the changes out and applying new patches, 
etc (basically the same thing as when someone force pushes to their PR 
branch).

> PS: Lost comments should still be in your mailbox as a last resort,
> since github sends notifications for each.
>

The problem is it doesn't send you copies of your own messages :(

Cheers,
Matthew Brush