1 |
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 08:43:12 -0800 |
2 |
"W. Trevor King" <wking@×××××××.us> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 04:02:02PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
5 |
> I think the idea is that you shouldn't need to refer to an external |
6 |
> resource like the mailing list to understand the idea behind the |
7 |
> patch, |
8 |
|
9 |
Either someone cares about the background of a patch or he/she doesn't. |
10 |
|
11 |
"The idea" is not documented by these annotations, hence if one wants to |
12 |
know the reasoning behind the certain way it is implemented he/she will |
13 |
have to go to the mailing list to know that. That is if the existing |
14 |
comments / commit message were insufficient for what one wonders about. |
15 |
|
16 |
> or the amount of review it received. |
17 |
|
18 |
The amount of review is a statistic; as there is no requirement for a |
19 |
minimal amount of review(er)s, knowing that amount brings us no gain. |
20 |
|
21 |
> The body of the commit message should summarize the consensus reached |
22 |
> on the mailing list, |
23 |
|
24 |
That message is written as part of the patch that is reviewed; it |
25 |
rarely gets updated with the consensus, unless we suggest / require |
26 |
people to do that. However, similar to vapier's response, I'd think |
27 |
introducing such processes feel like unnecessary efforts. |
28 |
|
29 |
> and these tags are basically standardized thank-you notes crediting |
30 |
> non-authors who were involved in that process. They don't have to go |
31 |
> on every patch, but if you want to mention somebody: |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Reviewed-by: Random J Developer <random@×××××××××××××××××.org> |
34 |
> Reviewed-by: Other R Developer <other@×××××××××××××××××.org> |
35 |
> |
36 |
> at the end of the commit message is easier to write and read than: |
37 |
> |
38 |
> This patch was reviewed Random J Developer |
39 |
> <random@×××××××××××××××××.org> and Other R Developer |
40 |
> <other@×××××××××××××××××.org>. |
41 |
|
42 |
Exactly: Do we want to spend time on this or not? Do we add everyone |
43 |
involved? Or do we just add people whom are not on the Portage team? |
44 |
|
45 |
People in the team can be expected to be respectful and thankful, thus |
46 |
I prefer the latter effort (non-Portage team only) if possible. |
47 |
|
48 |
Unless we intend to introduce this for statistics, although I think |
49 |
that prior annotation history missing as well as people that will |
50 |
casually forgot to add these annotations will make the statistics a |
51 |
misrepresentation. At least as long as humans instead of a system add |
52 |
these annotations, it be more nice to have a review system that adds |
53 |
these for us; but well, that would be over-engineering for Portage... |
54 |
|
55 |
-- |
56 |
With kind regards, |
57 |
|
58 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
59 |
Gentoo Developer |
60 |
|
61 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
62 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
63 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |