git trailers: should we use more of them ?
Hi all, AFAIK in our commit messages we are using two different trailers: - Signed-off-by tells who tested/reviewed the patch - Sponsored-by tells who sponsored the patch I recently stumbled upon the contribution guidelines for git [1] which suggests to use Reported-by, Acked-by, Reviewed-by, Tested-by and others (Thanks-to, Mentored-by, ...) I think it can be good to credit people who reported bugs or helped in a way other than signing off or writing patches (testers that find bug are helpful but they're not always the signoffers). Also, the distinction between Tested-By and Reviewed-By could help in situations where we don't know for sure if a signoff is only a test or a full QA review. This guide (and the git-commit manpage [2]) also states that we're not really using the Signed-off-by trailer as intended. In short, a "signoff" means (for git developers) that the patch author agrees to https://developercertificate.org/ I'd like to know what you think about this. Should we use Reported-By ? Should we replace Signed-off-by by Tested-By (for testers) and Reviewed-By (for QA) ? Should we use Signed-off-by as suggested in the git-commit manpage ? Do you think it is not worth the effort or that a change would be bad in some way ? Thanks [1] https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/SubmittingPatches [2] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-commit#git-commit--s -- Julian Maurice <julian.maurice@biblibre.com> BibLibre
Should we use Reported-By ?
Could be added optionally imo. No problem. Replace By with by btw.
Should we replace Signed-off-by by Tested-By (for testers) and Reviewed-By (for QA) ? Should we use Signed-off-by as suggested in the git-commit manpage ? Bit late in the project to make this change imo? But yes, our interpretation is quite different ;) If we should switch to Tested-by and Reviewed-by (note: lowercase by), we should better start at a version release? If so, what about the Bugzilla status Signed off etc.
Le 19/09/2018 à 16:44, Marcel de Rooy a écrit :
Should we replace Signed-off-by by Tested-By (for testers) and Reviewed-By (for QA) ? Should we use Signed-off-by as suggested in the git-commit manpage ? Bit late in the project to make this change imo? But yes, our interpretation is quite different ;) But it's never too late to make a positive change, right ? :)
If we should switch to Tested-by and Reviewed-by (note: lowercase by), we should better start at a version release? Probably, this would make it easier to distinguish between the two different meanings of Signed-off-by in the git history. That means all 'Signed off' patches would have to be rewritten after that release. A bit tedious but not impossible.
If so, what about the Bugzilla status Signed off etc. I hadn't thought of that. Can the status be renamed easily ? git-bz would need to be updated as well (and maybe other tools ?).
-- Julian Maurice <julian.maurice@biblibre.com> BibLibre
Bit late in the project to make this change imo? But yes, our interpretation is quite different ;) But it's never too late to make a positive change, right ? :)
I agree that it's not too late to make useful changes to our workflow. There was a time when we didn't even sign off patches! I'm not concerned that we're using "signed off" in a way that is nonstandard, but I am interested in adding better information to our patches if it's useful. It sounds to me like this is something which QA and/or release managers should decide. -- Owen -- Web Developer Athens County Public Libraries https://www.myacpl.org
I like the idea of adding more uses. Mentored-by is interesting information on the QA step, for example. El mié., 19 sept. 2018 a las 12:39, Owen Leonard (<oleonard@myacpl.org>) escribió:
Bit late in the project to make this change imo? But yes, our interpretation is quite different ;) But it's never too late to make a positive change, right ? :)
I agree that it's not too late to make useful changes to our workflow. There was a time when we didn't even sign off patches!
I'm not concerned that we're using "signed off" in a way that is nonstandard, but I am interested in adding better information to our patches if it's useful.
It sounds to me like this is something which QA and/or release managers should decide.
-- Owen
-- Web Developer Athens County Public Libraries https://www.myacpl.org _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
-- Tomás Cohen Arazi Theke Solutions (http://theke.io) ✆ +54 9351 3513384 GPG: B2F3C15F
I think we'd need to change a lot of things if we switched from Signed-off-by to another - including a lot of documentation. It might add more confusion than doing good imo. But I'd be OK with changing the line for QA to make things more clear if that is what people would like to see. Also using some additional ones like Mentored-by could be useful. Katrin On 19.09.2018 20:51, Tomas Cohen Arazi wrote:
I like the idea of adding more uses. Mentored-by is interesting information on the QA step, for example.
El mié., 19 sept. 2018 a las 12:39, Owen Leonard (<oleonard@myacpl.org <mailto:oleonard@myacpl.org>>) escribió:
> > Bit late in the project to make this change imo? But yes, our > > interpretation is quite different ;) > But it's never too late to make a positive change, right ? :)
I agree that it's not too late to make useful changes to our workflow. There was a time when we didn't even sign off patches!
I'm not concerned that we're using "signed off" in a way that is nonstandard, but I am interested in adding better information to our patches if it's useful.
It sounds to me like this is something which QA and/or release managers should decide.
-- Owen
-- Web Developer Athens County Public Libraries https://www.myacpl.org _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org <mailto:Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org> http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
-- Tomás Cohen Arazi Theke Solutions (http://theke.io <http://theke.io/>) ✆ +54 9351 3513384 GPG: B2F3C15F
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
I agree to the idea in principle too, adding detail is great. I don't have an issue with misusing the signoff line, I've been aware of that distinction for a long time. The major advantage of using it for our workflow is that it's often the least technical user doing the initial signoff and as such having the -s shortcut built into git is a nice aid. I don't see any similar flags for the other options. I can see it leading to the opportunity to really improve our history and about pages along with more recognition in release notes. Just my two pence. On Thu, 20 Sep 2018, 6:56 pm Katrin Fischer, <katrin.fischer.83@web.de> wrote:
I think we'd need to change a lot of things if we switched from Signed-off-by to another - including a lot of documentation. It might add more confusion than doing good imo. But I'd be OK with changing the line for QA to make things more clear if that is what people would like to see. Also using some additional ones like Mentored-by could be useful.
Katrin
On 19.09.2018 20:51, Tomas Cohen Arazi wrote:
I like the idea of adding more uses. Mentored-by is interesting information on the QA step, for example.
El mié., 19 sept. 2018 a las 12:39, Owen Leonard (<oleonard@myacpl.org>) escribió:
Bit late in the project to make this change imo? But yes, our interpretation is quite different ;) But it's never too late to make a positive change, right ? :)
I agree that it's not too late to make useful changes to our workflow. There was a time when we didn't even sign off patches!
I'm not concerned that we're using "signed off" in a way that is nonstandard, but I am interested in adding better information to our patches if it's useful.
It sounds to me like this is something which QA and/or release managers should decide.
-- Owen
-- Web Developer Athens County Public Libraries https://www.myacpl.org _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
-- Tomás Cohen Arazi Theke Solutions (http://theke.io) ✆ +54 9351 3513384 GPG: B2F3C15F
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing listKoha-devel@lists.koha-community.orghttp://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
I've added a section in https://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Commit_messages to encourage people adding more informations to commits. Changing Signed-off-by seems to be a bad idea. So let's do nothing about this. What about the QA signoff ? Reviewed-by or not ? Le 25/09/2018 à 08:04, Renvoize, Martin a écrit :
I agree to the idea in principle too, adding detail is great.
I don't have an issue with misusing the signoff line, I've been aware of that distinction for a long time. The major advantage of using it for our workflow is that it's often the least technical user doing the initial signoff and as such having the -s shortcut built into git is a nice aid. I don't see any similar flags for the other options.
I can see it leading to the opportunity to really improve our history and about pages along with more recognition in release notes.
Just my two pence.
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018, 6:56 pm Katrin Fischer, <katrin.fischer.83@web.de <mailto:katrin.fischer.83@web.de>> wrote:
I think we'd need to change a lot of things if we switched from Signed-off-by to another - including a lot of documentation. It might add more confusion than doing good imo. But I'd be OK with changing the line for QA to make things more clear if that is what people would like to see. Also using some additional ones like Mentored-by could be useful.
Katrin
On 19.09.2018 20:51, Tomas Cohen Arazi wrote:
I like the idea of adding more uses. Mentored-by is interesting information on the QA step, for example.
El mié., 19 sept. 2018 a las 12:39, Owen Leonard (<oleonard@myacpl.org <mailto:oleonard@myacpl.org>>) escribió:
> > Bit late in the project to make this change imo? But yes, our > > interpretation is quite different ;) > But it's never too late to make a positive change, right ? :)
I agree that it's not too late to make useful changes to our workflow. There was a time when we didn't even sign off patches!
I'm not concerned that we're using "signed off" in a way that is nonstandard, but I am interested in adding better information to our patches if it's useful.
It sounds to me like this is something which QA and/or release managers should decide.
-- Owen
-- Web Developer Athens County Public Libraries https://www.myacpl.org _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org <mailto:Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org> http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
-- Tomás Cohen Arazi Theke Solutions (http://theke.io <http://theke.io/>) ✆ +54 9351 3513384 GPG: B2F3C15F
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org <mailto:Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org> http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org <mailto:Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org> http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
-- Julian Maurice <julian.maurice@biblibre.com> BibLibre
participants (6)
-
Julian Maurice -
Katrin Fischer -
Marcel de Rooy -
Owen Leonard -
Renvoize, Martin -
Tomas Cohen Arazi