> > Today it came to my attention that not all Ceph developers agree with the > > following cherry-picking rule: > > > > "if a commit could not be cherry-picked from master, the commit message must > > explain why that was not possible" [1] > > > > [1] > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/SubmittingPatches-backports.rst#cherry-picking-rules > > From what I've seen myself, we strictly enforce this rule. I agree > with the rationale you've shared above. Any PR against a stable branch > that includes (OR excludes!) commits or fixes not present on master > must explain why. Thanks for your quick response, Patrick! Would you agree, then, to change the rule to allow the explanation of "why" to be done outside of the commit messages themselves? My concern is that by intentionally not including the explanation in the commit message, we are effectively withholding the explanation from future users of the git history. To put it another way, folks who are unfortunate enough to be involved in the kind of forensic examination I described will not benefit from explanations that are offered up in a PR or tracker issue. Nathan _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
