Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] Experience using GitHub verus Hosted Git

Dear Brian,

With a few GitHub experience, I am trying to understand your concerns.

2016-03-29 22:09 GMT+02:00 Brian de Alwis <bsd@xxxxx>:

> There’s a tradeoff in how you update a pull request (PR; a changeset in
> Gerrit terms).  You can use “—amend” and force up a new version, which at
> least marks the previous commits as stale, though the review comments still
> show.

They show as "XY commented on an outdated diff", which is IMHO good
for being able to follow what's happened.

>  Or you can put your changes in new commits, so that changes are
> easily discerned, but then newcomers to the PR walk through the historical
> record.

Instead of clicking on each commit, one can click on "Files changed".
There, one sees the latest changes and the current reviews. Outdated
reviews will not be shown.

> And beware that Travis doesn’t re-evaluate updates to a PR

My experience is, that it does.

> When you merge a PR, it’s not clear what is actually committed to the log
> message.

One can see it in git's history? "gitk --all" shows the commit history
perfectly and I can see which code changes made it into the current

> Opaque identifiers in commit messages (e.g., “Closes #105”) seem to
> reference issues, but sometimes PRs?

The numbers of PRs and Issues share the same set of increasing
numbers. Meaning: #105 is EITHER an issue or a pull request, but NEVER
both. That makes referencing very easy in comparison to sourceforge,
where one had to distinguish between numbers of bugs, feature
requests, patches etc.



Back to the top