On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Shyam <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 06/23/2017 09:48 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Shyam <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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.
Yes, but it is better to have this information at present than to drop it and loose the practice of providing the information.
If we ensure that the link between different branches is taken care of. Answer to "Is it better to have this practice of providing information" is subjective.
Changing habits are hard, I would rather not change the habit at the moment.
I agree. It goes both ways, we will not force a habit on new contributors who are coming to the community this way. IMHO we can make it easier for someone to contribute to gluster by reducing manual steps. This is one such step if we can execute it right handling corner cases.
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
Yes, this is pending to be done, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428047
Shyam
--
Pranith
--
Pranith
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
