On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 09:15:21AM +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > hi, > Now that we are doing backports with same Change-Id, we can find the > patches and their backports both online and in the tree without any extra > information in the commit message. So shall we stop adding text similar to: > > > Reviewed-on: https://review.gluster.org/17414 > > Smoke: Gluster Build System <jenkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Tested-by: Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > NetBSD-regression: NetBSD Build System <jenkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Amar Tumballi <amarts@xxxxxxxxxx> > > CentOS-regression: Gluster Build System <jenkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > (cherry picked from commit de92c363c95d16966dbcc9d8763fd4448dd84d13) > > in the patches? > > Do you see any other value from this information that I might be missing? I think it is good practise to mention where the backport comes from, who developed and reviewed the original. At least the commit-id is important, that way the backport can easily be compared to the original. git does not know about Change-Ids, but does know commmit-ids :) We should try to have all the needed details in the git repository, and not rely on Gerrit for patch verification/checking. When I'm working on a patch and wonder why/when something related was changed, I'll use the local history, and do not want to depend on Gerrit. Thanks, Niels _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
