15:14 <csanchezdll> I wanted to sent a contribution fore review. It had multiple commits, and after pushing I have seen this has created multiple patches in gerrit... which is confusing (all but the first show merge conflicts because they need to be applied in order...)

15:16 <csanchezdll> little mess :S I can stash locally and resubmit, which would probably save some reviewer time. But I do not want to 1) make more of a mess and 2) submit a duplicate

15:17 <PaulFertser> csanchezdll: hi

15:17 <PaulFertser> csanchezdll: each git commit is a separate "change" in Gerrit terminology.

15:17 <PaulFertser> csanchezdll: it's still a git branch so every commit has the parent hash encoded as part of the metadata.

15:18 <PaulFertser> csanchezdll: merge conflicts are shown because default merge strategy is "cherry-pick", that shouldn't worry you, the maintainers are not going to merge them out of order :)

15:19 <PaulFertser> csanchezdll: regarding the stashing/resubmition, if your patches are not really meant to be distinct patches doing different things then indeed you should stash. No fix up patches are "allowed", the history is supposed to be clean enough. You should keep the Change-Id in commit message from the patch that you fold the fixups into, and then you can abandon unneeded patches.

15:20 <PaulFertser> csanchezdll: Gerrit tracks each commit by unique Change-Id in the commit message, if you push a new commit with the same changeid it will be registered as a new revision of the patch.

15:21 <PaulFertser> csanchezdll: I hope that's clear now but if you have any questions surely you're welcome to ask and I'll try to clarify.

15:21 <PaulFertser> Each change on Gerrit is supposed to have a meaning of its own, either doing some bug fixing or adding a new feature etc.

15:22 <PaulFertser> csanchezdll: and btw, thank you for contributing, that's always appreciated!

15:25 <csanchezdll> all the commits are self-contained, but they are related. The code builds and works in every one of them, but the first ones are "preparations" for later. I do this to give more info for reviewers but for commit history in main is probably better to stash them. I will do that, keeping the commit id of the last one

15:25 <csanchezdll> s/main/master

15:25 <karlp> s/stash/squash/ I think you mean...

15:26 <csanchezdll> karlp: totally correct

15:28 <PaulFertser> csanchezdll: yes, on Gerrit your commits should look like the final commits in master, normally reviewers are not interested in your development history.

15:28 <PaulFertser> Thank you karlp for being attentive :)

15:34 <PaulFertser> csanchezdll: and if you squash the commits not only you can, you're expected to abandon the Gerrit changes that are no longer relevant.

15:36 <csanchezdll> of course, understood

15:36 <csanchezdll> all done, now it is a single patchset, reused change-id, all others abandoned

15:36 <csanchezdll> thanks PaulFertser & karlp !