Skip to main content

GH auto-rebase complaint

GitHub, you serve us well, but please allow me a tiny complaint about the rebase flow.

First, some context.

In a trunk-based, linear history rebase development workflow (aka tl;dr), we do primarily smallish PRs. The project has two active developers, and we consistently accomplish a handful of PRs daily. The review takes priority. Usually, an initial review is ready, and related fixes are implemented in less than an hour. Unfortunately, our CI is slow, and we typically don't have its status available once the human part of the review is complete.

GH has added the auto-merge (or auto-rebase) feature. It presumably works best in merge flows and is only nearly as good for the linear history rebase workflow. Unfortunately, we can't set multiple PRs to auto-rebase and expect GitHub to handle it automagically. Our branch protection rules require that source branches must be up-to-date before rebasing to main. Once any PR is rebased, the following ones are not up to date with the target branch.

This is roughly what happens currently when GitHub rebases a PR.

We recently wrote a script that polls the PRs, automatically updates the oldest set to be rebased and performs the rebase once CI passes.

We would love to get rid of it, so we are eagerly waiting for a feature where we can set multiple branches to auto-rebase in order and automatically keep them up to date.

This is what I would like GitHub to do once I first set PR #1 to auto-rebase, followed by #2. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I'm not a passionate developer

A family friend of mine is an airlane pilot. A dream job for most, right? As a child, I certainly thought so. Now that I can have grown-up talks with him, I have discovered a more accurate description of his profession. He says that the truth about the job is that it is boring. To me, that is not that surprising. Airplanes are cool and all, but when you are in the middle of the Atlantic sitting next to the colleague you have been talking to past five years, how stimulating can that be? When he says the job is boring, it is not a bad kind of boring. It is a very specific boring. The "boring" you would want as a passenger. Uneventful.  Yet, he loves his job. According to him, an experienced pilot is most pleased when each and every tiny thing in the flight plan - goes according to plan. Passengers in the cabin of an expert pilot sit in the comfort of not even noticing who is flying. As someone employed in a field where being boring is not exactly in high demand, this sounds pro...

PydanticAI + evals + LiteLLM pipeline

I gave a tech talk at a Python meetup titled "Overengineering an LLM pipeline". It's based on my experiences of building production-grade stuff with LLMs I'm not sure how overengineered it actually turned out. Experimental would be a better term as it is using PydanticAI graphs library, which is in its very early stages as of writing this, although arguably already better than some of the pipeline libraries. Anyway, here is a link to it. It is a CLI poker app where you play one hand against an LLM. The LLM (theoretically) gets better with a self-correcting mechanism based on the evaluation score from another LLM. It uses the annotated past games as an additional context to potentially improve its decision-making. https://github.com/juho-y/archipylago-poker

Careful with externalTrafficPolicy

On a project I am working on is hosted in an EKS cluster with the NGINX ingress controller (the one maintained by Kubernetes). It is deployed using it's official official Helm chart, which I realized, after a lengthy debugging session, was a mistake. The initial setup I aimed to improve had several flaws. Firstly, we were using the AWS Classic Load Balancer in front of the nginx ingress in the cluster, which has been deprecated for some time (years?). Continuing to use it makes little sense to us. The second issue was that we were only running one(!) nginx pod, which is quite sketchy since the exposed web services had essentially no high availability.  I switched to the Network Load Balancer (NLB), which was straightforward - I just needed to change the ingress-nginx service annotation to specify the load balancer type as NLB: service.beta.kubernetes.io/aws-load-balancer-type: nlb However, increasing the replica count turned out to be tricky. When I bumped it up to two, I began to ...