[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       webkit-dev
Subject:    Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit Transition to Git
From:       Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa () webkit ! org>
Date:       2020-10-13 22:29:49
Message-ID: CABNRm63QkD88md7H65y64E0TpWqOjSDav3czi_T31jHrnrJmYA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 2:37 PM Konstantin Tokarev <annulen@yandex.ru> wrote:
> 
> 
> 13.10.2020, 22:33, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>:
> > > On Oct 2, 2020, at 10:59 AM, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@gnome.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 6:36 pm, Philippe Normand <philn@igalia.com> wrote:
> > > > Would you also consider preventing merge commits in order to keep a
> > > > clean mainline branch?
> > > 
> > > Big +1 to blocking merge commits. Merge commits in a huge project like WebKit \
> > > would make commit archaeology very frustrating. (I assume this is implied by \
> > > the monotonic commit identifiers proposal, but it doesn't exactly say that.)
> > 
> > I'm assuming your objection is to regular merges, but how do you feel about \
> > squash merges? Or do you think all PRs should be landed by rebasing?
> 
> I'm not Michael but will add my 2 dollars anyway :)
> 
> In these two approaches commits inside PR have different meaning, and workflow is \
> different. 
> Below I use a term "atomic change" to describe minimal code change which is a \
>                 self-contained work unit with following properties:
> * It implements well-defined task which can be summarized as a short English \
>                 sentence (typical soft limit is 60 characters)
> * It doesn't introduce defects (e.g. bugs, compilation breakages, style errors, \
>                 typos) which were discovered during review process
> * It doesn't include any code changes unrelated to main topic. This separation is \
> sometimes subjective, but it's usually recommended to split refactoring and \
> implementation of feature based on that, bug fix and new feature, big style change \
> and fix or feature. 
> AFAIU our current review process has similar requirements to patches submitted to \
> Bugzilla, though sometimes patches include unrelated changes. This can be justified \
> by weakness of webkit-patch/Bugzilla tooling which has no support for patch series, \
> and by fact that SVN doesn't support keeping local patch series at all. 
> 1. Workflow 1 - "Squash merge" policy
> 
> * Whole PR is considered to be a single atomic change of WebKit source tree. If \
> work is supposed to be landed as a series of changes which depend on each other \
> (e.g. refactoring and feature based on it, or individual separate features touching \
> same parts of code), each change needs a separate PR, and, as a consequence, only \
>                 one of them can be efficiently reviewed at the moment of time
> * Commits in PR represent review iterations or intermediate implementation progress
> * Reviewers' comments are addressed by pushing new commits without rewriting \
> history, which works around GitHub's lack of "commit revisions". Also this workflow \
> has lower entry barrier for people who haven't mastered git yet, as it requires \
> only "git commit" and "git push" without rebases. 
> 2. Workflow 2 - "Rebase" ("cherry-pick")) or "Merge" policy
> 
> * PR is considered to be a series of atomic changes. If work consists of several \
>                 atomic changes, each commit represent an atomic change
> * Review iterations are done by fixing commits in place and reuploading entire \
> series using force push (of course if review discovers that substantial part of \
>                 work is missing it can be added as a new atomic commit to the \
>                 series)
> * It's possible to review each commit in the series separately
> * Workflow requires developers to have more discipline and experience with using \
> git rebase for history rewriting. Entry barrier can be lowered by providing step by \
> step instructions like e.g. [1].

I really dislike this workflow due to its inherent complexity. Having
to use Git is enough of a burden already. I don't want to deal with an
extra layer of complexity to deal with.

- R. Niwa
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]