Request for improved commit tracking between fcoe and scsi trees

Request for improved commit tracking between fcoe and scsi trees

[Neil Horman]

James, Robert-
	I've been doing lots of backports of FCoE code to the RHEL tree these
last few months, and I've noticed something fairly irritating, and I was
wondering if you two could help me out with it (in fact you two are the only two
which can).  I noticed that commits which are accepted into the FCoE tree that
get passed upstream through the scsi tree have their commit hashes altered.  I
can't find any examples currently, due to the fact that you, Robert, have
recently re-cloned your git tree at open-fcoe.org, so all this nastiness has
been covered up currently, but if things don't change, this issue will quickly
resurface.

Regardless, This makes it _really_ difficult to track a given patchs' traversal 
between trees upstream, and makes my life as a distro subsystem maintainer fairly
painful.  Normally I would just live with it, but I can't see any reason why it
should be this way, given that git can easily prevent this with a pull.  James,
Robert, could you two please work out a way to provide commit hash consistency
between your trees?  It would make mine (and I'm sure many other people's)
lives, much easier.

Thanks & Regards
Neil

Re: Request for improved commit tracking between fcoe and scsi trees

[Love, Robert W]

On 10/3/2012 12:23 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> James, Robert-
> 	I've been doing lots of backports of FCoE code to the RHEL tree these
> last few months, and I've noticed something fairly irritating, and I was
> wondering if you two could help me out with it (in fact you two are the only two
> which can).  I noticed that commits which are accepted into the FCoE tree that
> get passed upstream through the scsi tree have their commit hashes altered.  I
> can't find any examples currently, due to the fact that you, Robert, have
> recently re-cloned your git tree at open-fcoe.org, so all this nastiness has
> been covered up currently, but if things don't change, this issue will quickly
> resurface.
>
> Regardless, This makes it _really_ difficult to track a given patchs' traversal
> between trees upstream, and makes my life as a distro subsystem maintainer fairly
> painful.  Normally I would just live with it, but I can't see any reason why it
> should be this way, given that git can easily prevent this with a pull.  James,
> Robert, could you two please work out a way to provide commit hash consistency
> between your trees?  It would make mine (and I'm sure many other people's)
> lives, much easier.

I had included pull URLs in the covermails of my updates, but I haven't 
lately. I will make sure to do that from now on. Bart had a complaint 
about a misspelling in a commit message of a patch in my last update. I 
just resent that three patch series with the corrected commit message. I 
included a signed-tag to pull from in the covermail.

Consistent commit IDs between linux-fcoe.git and scsi.git would help me 
as well. It would allow me to track commit IDs from my tree all the way 
into the distros, so that I can make sure nothing gets missed.

Thanks, //Rob

Re: Request for improved commit tracking between fcoe and scsi trees

[Zou, Yi]

> On 10/3/2012 12:23 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> > James, Robert-
> > 	I've been doing lots of backports of FCoE code to the RHEL tree these
> > last few months, and I've noticed something fairly irritating, and I was
> > wondering if you two could help me out with it (in fact you two are the only
> two
> > which can).  I noticed that commits which are accepted into the FCoE tree that
> > get passed upstream through the scsi tree have their commit hashes altered.  I
> > can't find any examples currently, due to the fact that you, Robert, have
> > recently re-cloned your git tree at open-fcoe.org, so all this nastiness has
> > been covered up currently, but if things don't change, this issue will quickly
> > resurface.
> >
> > Regardless, This makes it _really_ difficult to track a given patchs' traversal
> > between trees upstream, and makes my life as a distro subsystem maintainer
> fairly
> > painful.  Normally I would just live with it, but I can't see any reason why it
> > should be this way, given that git can easily prevent this with a pull.  James,
> > Robert, could you two please work out a way to provide commit hash
> consistency
> > between your trees?  It would make mine (and I'm sure many other people's)
> > lives, much easier.
> 
> I had included pull URLs in the covermails of my updates, but I haven't
> lately. I will make sure to do that from now on. Bart had a complaint
> about a misspelling in a commit message of a patch in my last update. I
> just resent that three patch series with the corrected commit message. I
> included a signed-tag to pull from in the covermail.
> 
> Consistent commit IDs between linux-fcoe.git and scsi.git would help me
> as well. It would allow me to track commit IDs from my tree all the way
> into the distros, so that I can make sure nothing gets missed.
> 
> Thanks, //Rob
> --

I definitely share with Neil's comments as I did some backporting before and
had to make sure remember whatever commit id on open-fcoe is gonna change 
later, kind of defeats the commit id's purpose. So I certainly would hope 
linux-fcoe.git always gets pulled directly from scsi.git so we have 
the full true history as reflected by the commit id when Rob commits it.

Of course, James sign-off line on each open-fcoe patch is superseded by the
pull merge commit so no information loss there, except [SCSI] prefix on the patch 

yi

Re: Request for improved commit tracking between fcoe and scsi trees

[James Bottomley]

On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 15:23 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> James, Robert-
> 	I've been doing lots of backports of FCoE code to the RHEL tree these
> last few months, and I've noticed something fairly irritating, and I was
> wondering if you two could help me out with it (in fact you two are the only two
> which can).  I noticed that commits which are accepted into the FCoE tree that
> get passed upstream through the scsi tree have their commit hashes altered.  I
> can't find any examples currently, due to the fact that you, Robert, have
> recently re-cloned your git tree at open-fcoe.org, so all this nastiness has
> been covered up currently, but if things don't change, this issue will quickly
> resurface.
> 
> Regardless, This makes it _really_ difficult to track a given patchs' traversal 
> between trees upstream, and makes my life as a distro subsystem maintainer fairly
> painful.  Normally I would just live with it, but I can't see any reason why it
> should be this way, given that git can easily prevent this with a pull.  James,
> Robert, could you two please work out a way to provide commit hash consistency
> between your trees?  It would make mine (and I'm sure many other people's)
> lives, much easier.

I'm reluctant to commit to any tracking process that relies on stable
commit ids simply because they're illusory in git:  if we find a bug in
a commit (or even worse a bisection failure) in a tree, we fix it there,
which causes the commit id to change.

The way I do this type of tracking is via the Subject: line ... why
can't you use that?

James

Re: Request for improved commit tracking between fcoe and scsi trees

[James Bottomley]

On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 20:25 +0000, Love, Robert W wrote:
> On 10/3/2012 12:23 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> > James, Robert-
> > 	I've been doing lots of backports of FCoE code to the RHEL tree these
> > last few months, and I've noticed something fairly irritating, and I was
> > wondering if you two could help me out with it (in fact you two are the only two
> > which can).  I noticed that commits which are accepted into the FCoE tree that
> > get passed upstream through the scsi tree have their commit hashes altered.  I
> > can't find any examples currently, due to the fact that you, Robert, have
> > recently re-cloned your git tree at open-fcoe.org, so all this nastiness has
> > been covered up currently, but if things don't change, this issue will quickly
> > resurface.
> >
> > Regardless, This makes it _really_ difficult to track a given patchs' traversal
> > between trees upstream, and makes my life as a distro subsystem maintainer fairly
> > painful.  Normally I would just live with it, but I can't see any reason why it
> > should be this way, given that git can easily prevent this with a pull.  James,
> > Robert, could you two please work out a way to provide commit hash consistency
> > between your trees?  It would make mine (and I'm sure many other people's)
> > lives, much easier.
> 
> I had included pull URLs in the covermails of my updates, but I haven't 
> lately. I will make sure to do that from now on.

Actually, I'm happy to do a pull based process with signed tags going
forwards.  However:

>  Bart had a complaint 
> about a misspelling in a commit message of a patch in my last update. I 
> just resent that three patch series with the corrected commit message. I 
> included a signed-tag to pull from in the covermail.

That change changed the commit id and gives a graphic illustration of
why any tracking process based on git commit ids is wrong.

James

Re: Request for improved commit tracking between fcoe and scsi trees

[Neil Horman]

On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 11:59:29AM +0100, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 15:23 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > James, Robert-
> > 	I've been doing lots of backports of FCoE code to the RHEL tree these
> > last few months, and I've noticed something fairly irritating, and I was
> > wondering if you two could help me out with it (in fact you two are the only two
> > which can).  I noticed that commits which are accepted into the FCoE tree that
> > get passed upstream through the scsi tree have their commit hashes altered.  I
> > can't find any examples currently, due to the fact that you, Robert, have
> > recently re-cloned your git tree at open-fcoe.org, so all this nastiness has
> > been covered up currently, but if things don't change, this issue will quickly
> > resurface.
> > 
> > Regardless, This makes it _really_ difficult to track a given patchs' traversal 
> > between trees upstream, and makes my life as a distro subsystem maintainer fairly
> > painful.  Normally I would just live with it, but I can't see any reason why it
> > should be this way, given that git can easily prevent this with a pull.  James,
> > Robert, could you two please work out a way to provide commit hash consistency
> > between your trees?  It would make mine (and I'm sure many other people's)
> > lives, much easier.
> 
> I'm reluctant to commit to any tracking process that relies on stable
> commit ids simply because they're illusory in git:  if we find a bug in
> a commit (or even worse a bisection failure) in a tree, we fix it there,
> which causes the commit id to change.
> 
> The way I do this type of tracking is via the Subject: line ... why
> can't you use that?
> 
Because git workflows are rooted in the notion that (illusory or not),
commits are immutable and stable.  Like it or not, its how changes (generally
speaking) get tracked.  Every time you rewrite history, that gets messed up.
And yes, I (and any one else) pulling changes from the scsi tree could track
things based on Subject line, but thats got its own problems, as multiple trees
run the risk of of having the same trivial subject line, which is far more
likely to occur than a sha collision.  It would also require a customization of
my workflow specifically for the scsi tree that differs from any other tree that
I follow.

I think in short, I would far prefer to see a pull/merge strategy from your
downtream contributing trees, with myself handling the risk of having to do a
whole series fixup should you need to fix something during a rewrite in the scsi
tree.  I'd gladly accept that risk in exchange for the ability to handle your
tree like I do others.  It seems from your previous note that you're will to go
that route, and I certainly appreciate that.

Thanks!
Neil

> James
> 
> 
>