Re: RFC: teuthology field in commit messages

[Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2369 bytes --]

Hi Joao,

On 29/11/2015 12:51, Joao Eduardo Luis wrote:
> On 11/28/2015 03:56 PM, Loic Dachary wrote:
>> Hi Ceph,
>>
>> An optional teuthology field could be added to a commit message like so:
>>
>> teuthology: --suite rbd
>>
>> to state that this commit should be tested with the rbd suite. It could be parsed by bots and humans.
>>
>> It would make it easy and cost effective to run partial teuthology suites automatically on pull requests.
>>
>> What do you think ?
> 
> Can't we use git-notes for that instead?

It possible but few people understand how it works.

> I think this pollutes the history a bit. Especially considering this
> sort of metadata isn't necessarily specific to a given diff.

I think it is relevant in a permanent way. When running a suite, we do it on a given diff. For instance,
in a 10 commit pull request, we run the suite on the head of the branch, which will later become the second parent of the merge. Should we want to test at a later time, long after the pull request has been merged, we will be able to do it using the same suite. 

> Also should be considered that this is a field that may make sense today
> but may not make much sense in 10, 15 years. And while we have quite a
> few special-purpose fields (e.g., Fixes, Backport), those are currently
> pretty explanatory and I believe will be still easily understandable in
> a decade's time.

It also holds for stable branches since we maintain stable branches for ceph-qa-suite as well. So, for backporting 3 commits from a given pull request, it will also help to know that the backport could also be tested with this specific suite. And if the suite is missing the test, it's also a good hint that this test needs to be backported as well.

> In any case, if there's absolutely no other way to do this and the other
> folk thinks it's important to have this, I will certainly not be the
> party pooper ;)

:-) FWIW, I think the Backport: field should not be used ( see http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO_schedule_an_issue_for_backporting#Backport-field-in-the-commit-messages for the full rationale ). But I think the "teuthology" field being used *prior* to the pull request being merged makes sense and is a valuable addition to the commit history.

Cheers

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]