Re: [eclipse.org-committers] Experience using GitHub verus Eclipse.org H

[Oliver Kopp <kopp.dev@xxxxxxxxx>]

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They show as "XY commented on an outdated diff", which is IMHO good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 Outdated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
branch.

> 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.

Cheers,

Oliver