[Starlingx-discuss] Notes: Weekly StarlingX non-OpenStack Distro meeting, 12/12

[Dean Troyer]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 8:06 PM Liu, Changcheng <changcheng.liu at intel.com>
wrote:

>     2. *[Dean] **the references to the original commit are not available
> externally*
>         [Changcheng] Yes. The reference should be removed from commit
> message at last.
>         Originally, I want both Intel & WindRiver engineers could find
> where the patches are ported from which place at the initial porting stage.
>

[dt] The reference should NOT be removed.  If a patch is being rebased the
reference to the original patch must be preserved.


> 3. *[Dean] **It also seems like it would be easier to review and merge
> these in smaller batches.*
>         [Changcheng] Yes. I’m syncing with WindRiver engineers to check
> whether we could merge some patches firstly to avoid times of rebase and
> review.
>

[dt] I am not talking about merging commits, I am talking about splitting
the existing commits into multiple Github PRs.  Please do not merge commits
that are not directly related to each other..


>     4. *[Dean] **There is also no reference in either the commit messages
> or the PR description to a Storyboard story or task or any further
> documentation to why this work is being done.*
>         [Changcheng] I’ll add related information in PR message if we
> agree with merge part of patches firstly.
>

Please put it into the commit messages.  The PR text is not part of the git
repo and is lost github is unavailable.


>     5. *[Dean] **only the git commit messages are guaranteed to stay with
> the code changes.*
>         [Changcheng] We’ll give document about stx-ceph upgrade once it’s
> been upgraded successfully.
>

That does not address the need to put good information into the individual
commit messages.


> 6. *[**Dean**]* *I had asked for the relevant information to be included
> in the individual commit messages and I still do not see that being done.
> We are losing valuable information and traceability for why we are making
> these changes to upstream.*
>         [Changcheng] Personally, I think I’ve kept most part of original
> commit message in the new ported patches. Some huge patch is divided into
> small patches(If you look the original patch, it’s merged by several
> patches. It’s hard to be maintained). For PR info, we could give more
> detail info according to your requirement.
>

Thank you for splitting up previously squashed patches.  Please do not
confuse PR information (the text that is part of a Github PR) with a commit
message (the text that is part of a git commit).  Github PRs are not the
place of record for us.  Information that does not fit into a git commit
message should be in Storyboard or Launchpad, the two places we keep track
of those things.  But more importantly, things that the next team that
looks at this code will want to have without access to Github or Storyboard
or Launchpad needs to be in the commit message.  This is exactly the
problem we have with the existing patches agains upstream code where we
have commitmessages sometimes with only a link to a ticketing system that
we do not have access to.  I do not want that to continue.

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtroyer at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.starlingx.io/pipermail/starlingx-discuss/attachments/20181213/2caa412a/attachment.html>