+1 On 30 July 2013 14:27, Kris Borchers <kris.borchers(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Hey all, can I make a suggestion to reduce e-mail noise when merging PRs? Basically, I was the one that started doing the "thanks, landed in <sha>" messages on merges. There is no reason to add those comments when the SHA doesn't change. The only reason for those messages is to let the PR submitter know where their change landed when the SHA is different and the PR has to be manually closed. A standard merge will keep the SHAs intact and automatically close the PR, which is the usual case for most PR merges. If you ever have to rebase a PR for someone or you squash some of their commits then this would cause SHA changes and a "landed in <sha>" message is helpful. Also, there is usually no reason to add a "Merged <PR#>" comment. Those are either generated by GitHub when you merge or in the case described above, the "landed in" message is good enough. Let me know if that doesn't make sense or if you have questions. Thanks! _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

Hey all, can I make a suggestion to reduce e-mail noise when merging PRs? Basically, I was the one that started doing the "thanks, landed in <sha>" messages on merges. There is no reason to add those comments when the SHA doesn't change. The only reason for those messages is to let the PR submitter know where their change landed when the SHA is different and the PR has to be manually closed. A standard merge will keep the SHAs intact and automatically close the PR, which is the usual case for most PR merges. If you ever have to rebase a PR for someone or you squash some of their commits then this would cause SHA changes and a "landed in <sha>" message is helpful. Also, there is usually no reason to add a "Merged <PR#>" comment. Those are either generated by GitHub when you merge or in the case described above, the "landed in" message is good enough. Let me know if that doesn't make sense or if you have questions. Thanks! _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

+ 9001 Karel Piwko wrote: > +1 > On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:27:55 -0500 > Kris Borchers&lt;kris.borchers(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> Hey all, can I make a suggestion to reduce e-mail noise when merging PRs? >> Basically, I was the one that started doing the "thanks, landed in<sha>" >> messages on merges. There is no reason to add those comments when the SHA >> doesn't change. The only reason for those messages is to let the PR submitter >> know where their change landed when the SHA is different and the PR has to be >> manually closed. >> >> A standard merge will keep the SHAs intact and automatically close the PR, >> which is the usual case for most PR merges. If you ever have to rebase a PR >> for someone or you squash some of their commits then this would cause SHA >> changes and a "landed in<sha>" message is helpful. >> >> Also, there is usually no reason to add a "Merged<PR#>" comment. Those are >> either generated by GitHub when you merge or in the case described above, the >> "landed in" message is good enough. >> >> Let me know if that doesn't make sense or if you have questions. >> >> Thanks! >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev