DOC: hardcode contributors for 0.24.x releases

[jorisvandenbossche]

xref #24949 (comment)

The actual contributors are not picked up by our .. contributors:: sphinx extension, as the commit authors area lost in the backporting process using MeeseeksDev.

[jorisvandenbossche]

@TomAugspurger are you OK with this? In that case, will do the same for 0.24.2 as well.

[TomAugspurger]

Yeah, good for now.

Back when we backported manually, we passed the -x flag to include "cherry picked from"...
Does anyone know if this is what let GitHub retain the author information?
See 7bfed01

@Carreau is possible to configure meeseeksdev to include -x in the args at https://github.com/MeeseeksBox/MeeseeksDev/blob/77bac5daf0f9b2505bcdbe59dd0f1c75ceb36e64/meeseeksdev/meeseeksbox/commands.py#L434 (maybe there are downsides to that)?

[jorisvandenbossche]

It's not the -x from backporting manually that did the trick before, I think. It is just because we were directly cherry-picking, which preserves the commit author (although it change the commit committer).

Here, the problem comes from going through a PR on github. Eg the commit in #25663 still has correctly chris-b1 as the commit author (since the commit itself is just a cherry-pick). But when merging that PR, the PR author becomes the commit author of the squashed merged commit (and this is GitHub doing that, I think).

I opened scientific-python/MeeseeksDev#35 before as a possible solution.

Another solution might be that we don't squash backport PRs, but just merge them with a merge commit or with rebase and merge. But, then we always need to remember doing that for backport PRs, which is also error prone.

[TomAugspurger]

Ah thanks for the explanation. I think manually adding the authors is best for now.

…

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:37 AM Joris Van den Bossche < ***@***.***> wrote: It's not the -x from backporting manually that did the trick before, I think. It is just because we were directly cherry-picking, which preserves the commit author (although it change the commit committer). Here, the problem comes from going through a PR on github. Eg #25663 <#25663> still has correctly chris-b1 as the commit author (since the commit itself is just a cherry-pick). But when merging that PR, the PR author becomes the commit author of the squashed merged commit. I opened scientific-python/MeeseeksDev#35 <scientific-python/MeeseeksDev#35> before as a possible solution. Another solution might be that we don't squash backport PRs, but just merge them with a merge commit or with rebase and merge. But, then we always need to remember doing that for backport PRs, which is also error prone. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#25662 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABQHIl4wjBOcWS4kgHJPjyyXyX2nAoaTks5vVng1gaJpZM4bo3zu> .

[jorisvandenbossche]

Personally, I think that GitHub should automatically do the "Co-authored-by" thing when squashing a PR that has multiple commit authors .. but that's a change outside our reach.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #25662 into master will decrease coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #25662      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.29%   91.29%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         173      173              
  Lines       52961    52961              
==========================================
- Hits        48350    48349       -1     
- Misses       4611     4612       +1

Flag	Coverage Δ
#multiple	89.86% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
#single	41.74% <ø> (ø)	⬆️

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pandas/util/testing.py	88.98% <0%> (-0.1%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c4fa3c9...7ed570a. Read the comment docs.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #25662 into master will decrease coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #25662      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.29%   91.29%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         173      173              
  Lines       52961    52961              
==========================================
- Hits        48350    48349       -1     
- Misses       4611     4612       +1

Flag	Coverage Δ
#multiple	89.86% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
#single	41.73% <ø> (ø)	⬆️

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pandas/util/testing.py	88.98% <0%> (-0.1%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c4fa3c9...b6e394f. Read the comment docs.

[TomAugspurger]

I guess a whitespace issue here.

[Carreau]

If you need commit right and access to heroku for the logs I'm happy to give them to you. Let me know. I will try to see if we can do something about authorship.

…

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019, 11:59 Tom Augspurger ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In doc/source/whatsnew/v0.24.1.rst <#25662 (comment)>: > @@ -82,4 +82,15 @@ Bug Fixes Contributors ~~~~~~~~~~~~ -.. contributors:: v0.24.0..v0.24.1 +.. Including the contributors hardcoded for this release, as backporting with + MeeseeksDev loses the commit authors + +A total of 7 people contributed patches to this release. People with a “+” by their names contributed a patch for the first time. + +* Alex Buchkovsky +* Roman Yurchak +* h-vetinari +* jbrockmendel +* Jeremy Schendel I guess a whitespace issue here. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#25662 (review)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAUez2J8cK4i7NQ8c4Tdxuh0KMmiUussks5vVn1vgaJpZM4bo3zu> .