On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 01:47:57PM +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Niels de Vos <ndevos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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 :) > > > > Change-ID captures all this information. You can know the patch in all > branches with Change-ID, now that we are following same Change-ID across > branches. However a Change-Id is not standard git, it is purely a Gerrit thing. I can't cherry-pick or 'git show' a Change-Id, but that works fine with a git-commit. I also like to give credits to the people that originally wrote and reviewed the change. It is not required, but it is nice to have. > > 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. > > > > Change-ID is mentioned in the commit which is there in the git log, so we > can figure out the information without needing internet/gerrit. So that > part is not a problem. Yes, of course I can figure it out, but it is additional work. Most tools do not know about Change-Ids, like browsing through the code on GitHub; a commit-id will be linked, a Change-Id not. > All of this information was important to mention earlier because there was > no common thing binding all together. With same Change-ID across branches > for a patch, it seems unnecessary to mention this information in the commit > message. Not everyone is familiar with how Gerrit handles Change-Ids. A git-commit is something that other (new) contributors understand better. I prefer to make it as easy as possible for people to go through the git log and compare/check/verify whatever they are looking for. Limiting references to Change-Ids makes their task a little more difficult. Niels _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
