[Lustre-devel] Git commit message format

[Lustre-devel] Git commit message format

[Nikitas Angelinas]

Hi all,

 

 

The 'Submitting Patches' page in the wiki
http://wiki.lustre.org/index.php/Submitting_Patches describes the commit
message format to be used. It states that 'i=<inspector name>' should be
used to denote the patch inspectors; while this is used in the majority
of commits, some make use of an 'a=' (e.g. commit
0fda09a56aaf8105c7c5cb0326d0c8fcec6fc04c), 'r=' (e.g. same commit
0fda09a56aaf8105c7c5cb0326d0c8fcec6fc04c), or 'o=' (e.g. commit
80da07e3994946f85cc14f32888ed0c8ffd5d39e). I can't seem to be able to
find any info on these; could someone please let me know what they're
used for?

 

 

Kind Regards,

Nikitas

 


______________________________________________________________________
This email may contain privileged or confidential information, which should only be used for the purpose for which it was sent by Xyratex. No further rights or licenses are granted to use such information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by return and delete it. You may not use, copy, disclose or rely on the information contained in it.
 
Internet email is susceptible to data corruption, interception and unauthorised amendment for which Xyratex does not accept liability. While we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that this email is free of viruses, Xyratex does not accept liability for the presence of any computer viruses in this email, nor for any losses caused as a result of viruses.
 
Xyratex Technology Limited (03134912), Registered in England & Wales, Registered Office, Langstone Road, Havant, Hampshire, PO9 1SA.
 
The Xyratex group of companies also includes, Xyratex Ltd, registered in Bermuda, Xyratex International Inc, registered in California, Xyratex (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd registered in Malaysia, Xyratex Technology (Wuxi) Co Ltd registered in The People's Republic of China and Xyratex Japan Limited registered in Japan.
______________________________________________________________________
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-devel-lustre.org/attachments/20101209/43f06fa1/attachment.htm>

[Lustre-devel] Git commit message format

[Johann Lombardi]

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:07:46AM +0000, Nikitas Angelinas wrote:
> The 'Submitting Patches' page in the wiki
> http://wiki.lustre.org/index.php/Submitting_Patches describes the commit
> message format to be used. It states that 'i=<inspector name>' should be
> used to denote the patch inspectors; while this is used in the majority
> of commits, some make use of an 'a=' (e.g. commit
> 0fda09a56aaf8105c7c5cb0326d0c8fcec6fc04c),

This stands for "author". This is used when the author of the patch is different from the person who submits it. While this was needed for CVS, we can now easily change the "Author" field with git and land a patch on behalf of someone else.

> 'r=' (e.g. same commit 0fda09a56aaf8105c7c5cb0326d0c8fcec6fc04c),

I think this is used for "reviewer". However, this is not compliant with our rules and "i" should be used instead.

> or 'o=' (e.g. commit 80da07e3994946f85cc14f32888ed0c8ffd5d39e).

This is the same as "a" and it stands for "original author".

Johann

[Lustre-devel] Git commit message format

[Aurélien Degrémont]

Le 09/12/2010 17:50, Johann Lombardi a ?crit :
> This stands for "author". This is used when the author of the patch is 
> different from the person who submits it. While this was needed for 
> CVS, we can now easily change the "Author" field with git and land a 
> patch on behalf of someone else.
I think it could be good that git commit reflets the real patch author. 
(This could be useful for Ohloh by the way :-))
But may be you could find it useful for internal process to know who 
really comitted it, and in this case, it could be better to add a tag 
'c=' for committer, and git author is the real patch author.


Aur?lien

[Lustre-devel] Git commit message format

[David Dillow]

On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 21:15 +0100, Aur?lien Degr?mont wrote:
> But may be you could find it useful for internal process to know who 
> really comitted it, and in this case, it could be better to add a tag 
> 'c=' for committer, and git author is the real patch author.

Git keeps the committer information as well, and it may differ from the
patch author, so no need to call it out in the commit message.
-- 
Dave Dillow
National Center for Computational Science
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(865) 241-6602 office