[scikit-learn] always Squash and Merge?

[Joel Nothman]

That's generally my approach too. Squash and merge unless you need a record
of separate authorship.

Squashing helps managing cherrypicking for releases, and ensuring what's
new has decent coverage.

On 29 September 2016 at 00:02, Andreas Mueller <t3kcit at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey.
>
> This is a continuation of the discussion we had on squashing in June:
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/scikit-learn/2016-June/000121.html
>
> I thought we discussed this again after the "squash and merge" feature was
> introduced, but I couldn't find the thread.
>
> I think Joel, me and some others where recently using the github "squash
> and merge" feature,
> which I think is great. It removes burden from the contributors and makes
> for a "clean" (or fake) history.
> I like it because it makes cherry-picking easy and allows a pretty simple
> analysis of what's happening.
>
> When doing some backports, I realized that some people (including Gael)
> didn't use it.
>
> Is there a reason not to use squash and merge? Should we make it policy?
>
> The one case where I think we might not want it is in case there are
> multiple authors in a PR.
> Other than that, I don't really see a downside.
>
> Wdyt?
>
> Andy
> _______________________________________________
> scikit-learn mailing list
> scikit-learn at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scikit-learn/attachments/20160929/39001295/attachment.html>