Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>
To: wking@×××××××.us
Cc: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Signing off patches
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 22:58:52
Message-Id: 20140118235738.2bf5feab@TOMWIJ-GENTOO
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Signing off patches by "W. Trevor King"
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Signing off patches "W. Trevor King" <wking@×××××××.us>
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Signing off patches Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>