On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Shyam <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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)
If we move away from gerrit the information we provide now about what is the patch on master etc are also not of any help.
2) Using the same Change-Id is not enforced, so till we do that, getting to this point is not feasible.
This is a valid point I think. But we can provide extra checks in smoke to check if it is not a backport with correct change-id. So it has solutions
Shyam
--
Pranith
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
