On 20 April 2016 at 16:51, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Luke Diamand <luke@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> One thing I wondered about is whether this should be enabled by >> default or not. Long-time users of git-p4 might be a bit surprised to >> find their git commits suddenly gaining an extra Job: field. > > Ahh, I didn't even wonder about but that is not because I didn't > think it matters. > > Does this change affect reproducibility of importing the history > from P4, doesn't it? Would that be a problem? It would change the history created, but I don't see why that would be a problem. > > How common is it to have the "extra" Job: thing in the history on P4 > side? Where I work currently we don't use jobs (at present). Where I worked before, jobs were created automatically to track issues in JIRA, and were (supposed to be) entered into commits. It's potentially quite useful so I guess might be quite widespread. > If the answer to this question is "on rare occasions and only > when there is a very good reason to have 'jobs' associated with the > changelist", then the 'might be a bit surprised' brought by this > change can probably be explained away as "a fix to a (design) bug > that used to discard crucial information" that (unfortunately) have > to change the resulting Git object names. > Luke -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html