From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Ipsum Subject: Re: Working towards a common review format for git Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 19:23:39 +0000 Message-ID: <20160108192339.GA3514@salo> References: <20160108140831.GA10200@salo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git , Stefan Beller , Edwin Kempin To: Dave Borowitz X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jan 08 20:23:49 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aHcdW-0001FO-O8 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 20:23:47 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932098AbcAHTXl (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:23:41 -0500 Received: from ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk ([185.25.241.215]:42233 "EHLO ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755630AbcAHTXk (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:23:40 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20E34622BE; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 19:23:38 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk Received: from ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jkqHg52bilzL; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 19:23:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from salo (salo.dyn.ducie.codethink.co.uk [10.24.2.138]) by ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41EA546082F; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 19:23:36 +0000 (GMT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 09:53:53AM -0500, Dave Borowitz wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Dave Borowitz wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Richard Ipsum > > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> In a prior email I mentioned in passing a library I've been working > >> on to try to reach a common format for storing review content in git: > >> perl-notedb.[1] > >> > >> I'm making reasonable progress with this but my work has uncovered > >> necessary (and trivial) modifications to Notedb, the first[2] is a > >> trivial modification to ensure the 'Status' trailer gets written > >> to the commit when a change's status changes. > > > > I would consider this a bugfix, and will respond on that review. > > > >> The second[3] is an RFC > >> where I suggest adding a 'Commit' trailer so that it is always > >> possible to reference the commit under review by its sha. > > > > I think this is probably fine but I'll have to think about it some more. > > > >> With these patches applied to gerrit it's possible for perl-notedb to parse > >> all meta content from notedb and map it to the actual git content > >> under review. However, my concern at present is that I'm already > >> operating under a fork of notedb which defeats the objective of > >> collaborating to produce a standard format, let's try to avoid[4] > > > > I hope I can assuage some of your concerns by saying that since Gerrit > > notedb is such a work in progress, literally nobody is running it in > > the wild, so even if the formats diverge temporarily I don't see it as > > being a long-term issue. But thank you for caring about it, I do > > appreciate your proactive considerations. Thanks, that's good to know, thanks also for reviewing the modifications I mentioned. :) > > You know what would probably also be a good idea would be to spec out > the entire format in a standalone document. That way when Gerrit > doesn't have something implemented, it's clear that Gerrit is wrong, > not that it's trying to fork the format. I think that would be good, I could attempt to write a spec for the format and post it here for review? I expect I'll want to work a little more on perl-notedb before I do that though.