On 06/23/2017 07:00 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
Note that all of this is just my opinion, and based on working with many
different projects that use git (or other tools) to identify patches
that could be candidates for backporting. In general, the more details
that are captured in the commit message, the easier it is to get an
understanding of the different patches in different branches.
Yes, I am also for as much information as possible in the commit with
least amount of human effort. In time I would like us to get to a point,
where we just have to say: backport release-3.12 release-3.11
release-3.10 and the script should clone, send the patches on gerrit and
do recheck centos, recheck netbsd, so the only human effort has to be to
be merge the patch
My opinion is that we should retain the information that we currently
provide, for 2 reasons,
1) Change-Id is gerrit specific, so if we move away at some later point
in time, this is not going to help (yes we can search the git log for
the same change ID etc. but as discussed in this thread, it is not git
standard, it is gerrit addition)
2) Using the same Change-Id is not enforced, so till we do that, getting
to this point is not feasible.
Shyam
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
