From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Re: proposal to stop using "backport: " in commit logs Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:04:38 +0200 Message-ID: <552C2156.8090406@dachary.org> References: <552BF349.50909@redhat.com> <552BFCBA.2010201@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aoHqotMLnNX2NfHC798NaBw7T0VNvQ5cm" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:46003 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751669AbbDMUEl (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:04:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Gregory Farnum Cc: Ken Dreyer , "ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --aoHqotMLnNX2NfHC798NaBw7T0VNvQ5cm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 13/04/2015 20:53, Gregory Farnum wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Loic Dachary wrote= : >> >> Hi Greg, >> >> On 13/04/2015 19:04, Gregory Farnum wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Ken Dreyer wrot= e: >>>> A while ago this came up in #ceph-devel and I wanted to bring it to = a >>>> wider audience. >>>> >>>> Should we stop the convention of adding the "backport: " tags in Git= ? >>>> >>>> Loic brought up the point that this data is essentially immutable af= ter >>>> we merge it, and it's better to point at a Redmine tracker where we = can >>>> alter the "backport" field. >>>> >>>> This makes it easier to adjust the "backport" data after the code's = been >>>> merged to master. It also makes it easier for whoever is corralling = the >>>> backport efforts, because the person only have one place to look >>>> (Redmine) instead of two (Redmine + git commit logs). >>>> >>>> For what it's worth I agree with Loic on this. >>>> >>>> Any objections? >>> >>> Why don't we just treat the backport commit tag as an expected value,= >>> and any corresponding redmine data as the canonical one? >> >> That's what we currently do, I think. >> >>> I find the >>> backport tags to be useful when reviewing commits and I think the >>> authorial intention matters. >> >> A git-notes could be added for that purpose instead. >=20 > Huh, I'm not previously familiar with that mechanism. Is there any > particular reason you didn't use that for tracking backport states to > begin with? It looks like it's sort of designed for this purpose. My thoughts exactly. But I figure that out only recently. The cross refer= encing script which currently creates a web page should be changed to up= date / verify git notes in a namespace dedicated to backporting, in a jso= n format that is rigid and meant to be consistent and reliable. And the w= eb page should be a display of these git notes instead of what it current= ly is. The default git notes name space could be used by developers to st= ore human edited notes about commits such as the Backport field etc. beca= use there is value in loosely maintained information. Cheers --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --aoHqotMLnNX2NfHC798NaBw7T0VNvQ5cm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlUsIVYACgkQ8dLMyEl6F20Y/QCfTOON9/1MmH4be9mH4SGbxkNh o6QAn3OfpZ3xO6kJDmKaE2heZuQg4hy/ =M5ls -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --aoHqotMLnNX2NfHC798NaBw7T0VNvQ5cm--