On 9/8/20 1:06 AM, Patrick Donnelly wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 8:25 AM John Zachary Dover <zac.dover@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:There is a proper format for Merge Commits, which has been documented here: https://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/dev/developer_guide/basic-workflow/#proper-merge-commit-format Kefu is quite keen for us to adhere to this format. If this needs to be beefed up or slimmed down, let me know.
Thanks! This seems to be the format that github uses by default (even though one needs to add the "Reviewed-by:" lines manually).
BTW, github also adds a comment about the pull request ID and the source branch, e.g.:
[SNIP]commit b5e47e7bfaa4717cee5b808546260b9484c585ae (HEAD -> master, upstream/master)
Merge: 7f2135648ed 44320a0d0c5
Author: Kefu Chai <kchai@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Sep 4 17:14:10 2020 +0800
Merge pull request #36059 from liu-chunmei/seastore-extentmap-tree
crimson/seastore: add extent map tree
Reviewed-by: Samuel Just <sjust@xxxxxxxxxx>
[SNIP]
I think it would be helpful to make at least the pull request ID a
mandatory piece of information of a merge commt as well, this helps to
quickly trace down the origin and related conversations about a
contribution.
Note: src/script/ptl-tool.py is a script tool for merging pull requests that automatically adds "Reviewed-by" to the merge commit message for you. It adds the message for GitHub review approvals or comments indicating "Reviewed-by...".
Nice, good to know. But this requires push privileges into the corresponding branch, correct? Or is that a give if one has the permissions to merge PRs via the github web interface? I haven't dared trying pushing directly into master yet ;)
By the way, ptl-tool.py seems to use a slightly different format than github when it comes to referring to the pull request:
[SNIP]
Author: Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu Sep 3 10:08:42 2020 -0700
Merge PR #36546 into master
* refs/pull/36546/head:
vstart_runner: log commands in a more usable form
Reviewed-by: Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Ernesto Puerta <epuertat@xxxxxxxxxx>
[SNIP]
pt-tool indicates the destination branch, while github focuses on the
source branch. Is there a point in trying to have a more consistent way
of referring to the pull request ID and the branches involved?
Lenz -- SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH - Maxfeldstr. 5 - 90409 Nuernberg GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xE66F1B6ADBDDA420_and_old_rev.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
