On 09/06/2016 10:10 PM, Barak Korren wrote:
> I find that typically work history can be lease then ideal for
> presenting work to other developers. For me I typically find that I
> can narrow down commits by a factor of 3-5 when going from actual work
> history to a commit series that describes gradual accumulation of
> major features.
In ideal way I would have done topic branches from the start. Already
moving out the Vagrant work was a pain in the ass, so it would mean
hours or rebasing to aggregate fixes, which I'm clearly not willing to do.
So I agree on presenting the history, except in this case (without
gerrit) all the discussions about why something was setup one way and
then changed is not in reviews and associated comments. So if I squash
commits, messages explaining the reasons are lost.
> Please not that I did not mean that you should squash all commits to a
> single big one, just narrow them down and reorder to make it easier
> for us to understand your major themes and ideas.
That would probably be nice, but I'm not gonna redo all my work again,
with things months behind I do not recall perfectly.
So unless a decent proposition is done, well, we're stuck.
With the current limitations of Gerrit (acknowledging your other reply)
I see only two possibilities, none of them satisfying:
- reviewing (well, accepting in fact) all the commits one by one. this
is boring but history is preserved
- cleaning all reviews I sent by mistake, and have just 2 commits:
base layout with MM3 full, and Vagrant work
I would have preferred my work being used as it is as the base
repository of gerrit, or even better that this gerrit repository was
created from the start (but with noone to really be able to review
except myself). Now this is the hard way.
Infra mailing list