[lustre-devel] merges to b2_<x>

[Christopher J. Morrone]

Generally we keep the first line of the commit message the same.  We 
should probably make that explicit policy, actually, if it isn't 
already.  That is usually what I use to correlate patches.

I think the git commit would be problematic to use at times.  For 
instance, consider the case where both the master and b2_1 patches are 
developed in parallel (rather than waiting for the final commit on one 
branch before starting the other).  The commit ID will change until the 
final commit is pushed to the central repo.

If we don't just use the subject line (my preference, because it is easy 
to compare using "git log --oneline"), we could add another meta-field 
that references the other change's gerrit Change-Id.  But there are 
already lots of meta-fields...

Chris

On 08/06/2012 09:55 PM, Cory Spitz wrote:
> Hi.
>
> We at Cray have been looking at b2_1 landings, and one thing that I
> think would be nice is if we could identify the master commit that the
> b2_1 commit is based on directly from the mod header.  Unless, of
> course, there is an easy way to derive this information via git.  I hope
> that this isn't a stupid question, but is there?  It seems to me that
> since most b2_1 commits are cherry picked that we lose that bit.  It
> seems that git cherry-pick -x might be useful here.  Is that all we need?
>
> If there isn't an easy way for git to provide the lineage, would we be
> able to add an additional commit tag or just advertise a convention to
> follow at http://wiki.whamcloud.com/display/PUB/Commit+Comments?
>
> Thanks,
> -Cory
> _______________________________________________
> lustre-devel mailing list
> lustre-devel at lists.opensfs.org
> http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-opensfs.org
>