[lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [GitHub] RFC: Enforcing no merge commit policy

[James Y Knight via lldb-dev]

I think we definitely will want to support github PRs, at the very least as
an _option_, even if we continue running/preferring phabricator.

Github PRs are how everyone who is not already super-involved in the llvm
project is going to want to contribute changes, and we ought to be as
welcoming as possible to such users.

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:15 PM Roman Lebedev via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:00 PM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to follow up on the previous thread[1], where there was a
> consensus
> > to disallow merge commits in the llvm github repository, and start a
> discussion
> > about how we should enforce this policy.
> >
> > Unfortunately, GitHub does not provide a convenient way to fully enforce
> this policy.
> > We can enforce it for pull requests, but not for direct pushes to the
> master branch,
> > so we will have to come up with our own solution if we want to
> completely prevent
> > merge commits.  I've spent some time looking into this and here are a few
> > options that I've come up with (If you are a GitHub expert and have other
> > suggestions, please let us know):
> >
> > 1. Have either a status check or use the "Rebase and Merge" policy for
> pull requests
> > to disallow merge commits.  Disable direct pushes to the master branch
> and update the
> > git-llvm script to create a pull request when a developer does `git llvm
> push` and
> > then have it automatically merged if there are no merge commits.
> >
> > 2. Enforce no merge commits for pull requests, but sill allow developers
> to push directly
> > to master without checking for merge requests.  This is essentially a
> best effort
> > approach where we avoid having to implement our own custom work-flow for
> committing,
> > while accepting the possibility that someone might accidentally push a
> merge commit.
> >
> > 3. Disable direct pushes to master, don't update the git-llvm script and
> require all
> > developers to use pull requests, where this policy will be enforced.
> >
> > Which option do you prefer?
> All these options include at least partial usage of/switch to github pr's.
> I don't think that was discussed before. (FWIW i'm opposed to that.)
>
> Is there a fourth option - ask github whether they could make an exception
> for LLVM to use server-side hooks? They are available in github enterprise.
>
> > -Tom
> Roman.
>
> > [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-January/129723.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20190319/9144f1b6/attachment.html>