Is it compatible with jujutsu?
I'm not familiar with jujutsu. Maiao is fully git-compatible and the idea is to<p>a) Not create new API/commands on top of it. Everything works with the normal "git commit".<p>b) Progressively enhance the user experience. Each commit becomes a PR stacked atop each other. It auto-rebases if the base changes, and so on.
jj is a pretty nifty VCS - certainly worth looking in to. A lot of the concepts run parallel to Maiao I _think_, I'm still learning jujitsu myself.<p>A couple questions:<p>1) what's the name about?
2) does this get wicked messy if I'm the only one on my team using Maiao?
Probably worth looking into. It provides most of the machinery here on the version control side.
The repo seems to move from "adevinta" (a well known company in the EU tech) to "runetes". Anyone to tell us the story?
> Note: This is a community fork of adevinta/maiao. The original maintainers are no longer at Adevinta and the upstream repository is no longer actively maintained. This fork continues development under runetes/maiao.
Hi! One of maiao's maintainers here, and ex-Adevinta.<p>tl;dr: Adevinta got bought by a Private Equity consortium [1]. Since then, the fund did many changes, and layoffs. All of the original creators/maintainers don't work there anymore.<p>Runetes is just an umbrella org for some OSS we created there.<p>1 - <a href="https://adevinta.com/press-releases/permira-and-blackstone-announce-voluntary-offer-for-all-outstanding-ordinary-class-a-shares-in-adevinta-at-nok-115-per-share/" rel="nofollow">https://adevinta.com/press-releases/permira-and-blackstone-a...</a>
This sounds intriguing. Additionally, I wanted the community to evolve our approach to providing PR feedback. One of the unintended consequences was that it became a tool for people to exploit their workers.
Who is creating a separate PR for each commit on their feature/fix branch?<p>sounds like crazy town.<p>I just dont understand why someone would operate like this.<p>Lets assume you're squash merging your feature branchs to your local main, then you're raising the them as prs.<p>why would you do this?
On large teams I think the "cherry pick" workflow (Gerrit style) beats the "pull request" workflow (GitHub/gitlab style). On smaller teams it's the other way around. I think it's somewhere around 10-20 people actively committing that the cherry pick workflow comes out ahead.
This is exactly it. When I worked in a ~10 person team I just didn't get it, PRs worked quite well (with some basic discipline, they're not perfect). When I moved to a... much larger company... I don't know how PRs would work here, it would be way too unwieldy. The Gerrit style works fantastically here.
This is standard practice in the "stacked diffs" world: one review, one commit.
I haven’t used this project but I have used Gerrit. It has its drawbacks (like terrible UX) but its style of code reviews were the most sensible and commit of every PR might not be as bad as it sounds. GitHub’s PR reviews are atrocious and it’s unfortunate they have become the gold standard.<p>In Gerrit, you commit every review, and the author has to edit individual commits to address them (using git rebase). This may sound PITA but it makes the history absolutely clean, and makes it easier for both reviewers and authors to review and address suggestions.<p>On Github, on the other hand, reviewing a large PR is just insanely hard. Making sure comment was addressed properly is hard as well, they can get lost in a sea of suggestions. They also become separate commits instead of being part of the commit itself. The commit should always been treated as unit of work rather than the branch.
1 commit == 1 reviewable unit == 1 PR == 1 CL == 1 feature == 1 fix is a perfectly reasonable way of working.<p>I used to work at companies where no one squashed their commits and the entire git logs were filled with 80% non-sense like "temp" or "bad" or "working" with the other 20% being coherent changes. What's the point of doing this I ask?
there is an inbetween .... i insist people interactively rebase those commits out. In some contexts it is actually important to have traceability of iterative proof of work towards the final result.
Well are we talking about commits pre- or post-merge? I don’t care how many commits you put into the PR / MR as long as they squash down to a single commit upon merge.
it lets you maintain version history when working, then most workflows auto squash on merge
Why would you have more than one commit for a PR? That sounds like crazy town.
A PR is a collection of commits?<p>Integration into main ideally is squashed down to a single merge commit though.<p>It shouldn't matter how many commits a pr takes to from 0 to finished
IMHO equating commits and PRs puts undue pressure on the scope and quality of a given commit, adding potential for unnecessary stress and eliminating the benefits of an additional buffer / layer for aggregation of changes. A PR representing a sizable feature or refactor might naturally contain a dozen commits, each dedicated to a logical
area or a requisite subset of the whole. Assuming on principle a goal of keeping main in a known-good state, such intermediate and incomplete changes (fine in an unstable feature branch) would wreak havoc.<p>It's equivalent to asking, "Why would you have more than one story in an epic (or task in a story)?".
You wouldn't. Imagine you have more than one of what you are calling a "feature/fix branch" and they depend on each other.
IME juniors struggle with making single commits in the first place. What I usually see is a scatter brained approach with more "fix" commits than anything else. This doesn't help with that, does it?
The Juniors are also very good with AI. Having them merge bad commits into logical ones is a fine operation for them too.
It means you can comment on the problematic commits saying "please squash this". Then (if it works as well as Gerrit) you can compare the commit between the before and after squash state.<p>Basically it lets you treat the commits as part of the thing you are reviewing instead of just a minor detail that the UI doesn't care about very much.
It could help in the sense that people would not accept a pile of `fix`, `fix of fix` commits in a PR anymore.<p>The current UIs don't punish you for that as the reviewer mostly sees one final coherent change.
As someone who much prefers Gerrit's UI/UX over GitHub's UI, I was disappointed that this wasn't replicating the UI for GH reviews.<p>Edit: Just to be clear, this is not a blemish on this project. More a lament and a wish someone would create such a thing for those of us forced to leave Gerrit behind for... GitHub. =/
Does it use Github's new stacked PR feature?<p>Edit: apparently stacked PRs on GH are older than I thought; the readme references a 2024 blog post about it.
Hi! Maintainer here.<p>In short: maiao supported stacked PRs on GH, before it existed as a feature :) Now that it's exists (beta), it simply does "progressive enhancement" and adds the PRs to the native stack. But you could still perfectly function without it. That's how maiao works on Codeberg, and Bitbucket, for instance.<p>GiLab has an interesting approach where they auto-stack up until 20 Merge Requests, if they're chained.
It seems so, <a href="https://github.com/runetes/maiao#quick-example" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/runetes/maiao#quick-example</a><p>As they say in mtg, reading the card explains the card
Gerrit. Now that's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time
Maiao is based on Gerrit<p>What's a Gerrit? (Looks it up)<p>Gerrit is based on Rietveld<p>What's a Rietveld? (Looks it up)<p>Rietvelt integrates with SVN<p><a href="https://xkcd.com/178/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/178/</a>