On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 12:53:56AM +0100, Arnaud Bertrand wrote:
> Hi Junio,
>
> It really depends how git is used. With big collaborative project
> (like git or linux kernel), you are totally right.
> for development limited to a company that has developments with team
> of 10-20 developers and that uses
> a correct SCM plan, the name of the branch is regulated and is
> meaningful, mostly linked to a bug tracking system
> system. For audits and traceability, the branch name is really
> important... certainly more than the email of the developer ;-)
> So the "contamination" is negligible compare to the bentefit in this context.
> It will also helps the graphical tools to have a comprehensive
> represeintation which can do git even better.
Why does it need to be the branch name? You can add your own extra
metadata to the git description. So for example, I might have a git
commit that looks like this:
ext4: avoid declaring fs inconsistent due to invalid file handles
If we receive a file handle, either from NFS or open_by_handle_at(2),
and it points at an inode which has not been initialized, and the file
system has metadata checksums enabled, we shouldn't try to get the
inode, discover the checksum is invalid, and then declare the file
system as being inconsistent.
... <details of repro omitted to keep this email short>
Google-Bug-Id: 120690101
Upstream-5.0-SHA1: 8a363970d1dc38c4ec4ad575c862f776f468d057
Tested: used the repro to verify that open_by_handle_at(2)
will not declare the fs inconsistent
Effort: storage/ext4
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Change-Id: Iafb6da7c360a4c34b882f7fd6a91e3bb
The tie-in to the bug tracking system is done via "Google-Bug-Id:".
The Effort tag is used to identify which subteam should be responsble
for rebasing the commit to a newer upstream kernel. (E.g., how to
account for all of the patches made on top of 4.14.x when you are
rebasing to the newer 4.19 long-term-stable kernel, to make sure all
not-yet-usptreamed commits are carried over during the rebase
process.)
The Upstream-X.Y-SHA1: tag indicates that this is an upstream commit
that was backported to the internal kernel. If the commit isn't an
upstream backport, we have a policy (which is enforced via an
automated bot when the commit goes through Gerritt for review) that
there must be an "Upstream-Plan: " tag indicating how the committer
plans to get the change upstream.
The automated review bot also enforces that a Tested: tag exists,
describing how the developer tested the change, and Change-Id: is used
to link the commit to Gerrit, which is how we enforce that all commits
have to be reviewed by a second engineer before it is allowed into the
production kernel sources. We also maintain all of the Gerrit
comments as history and so we can have accountability as to who
reviewed a commit before it was submitted into the release repository.
We also have automated bots which will run checkpatch and note the
warnings from checkpatch as Gerrit commits; and if the kernel doesn't
build on a variety of architetures and configurations (e.g., debug,
installer, etc.) a bot can also report this and add -1 Gerrit review.
See? You can do an awful lot without regulating and recording the
branch name used by the engineer. We have full audit and traceability
through the Gerrit reviews, and we can use the Google-Bug-Id to track
which release versions of which kernels have which bugs fixed.
The bottom line is each company is going to have a different workflow
for doing reviews, linkage to bug tracking systems, auditability, etc.
If everybody were to demand their unique scheme was to be supported
directly in Git, it would be a mess. The scheme that I've described
above needs no special git features. It just uses some git hooks as a
convenience to to developers to help them fill in these required
fields, using Gerrit for commit review, and some bots which submit
reviews to Gerrit.
Cheers,
- Ted
