You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Stack <st...@duboce.net> on 2014/08/01 19:38:04 UTC
[DISCUSSION] applying patches
I just committed a message with 'git am' because the author took the
trouble to write a sweet commit message. Others have been taking the
trouble to write useful commit messages but up to this I've been just
applying patches with patch with a commit message that is the issue number,
subject, and author only rather than git apply or git am.
On the tail of HBASE-4593, Misty is looking for clarification.
I suggest that if contributor wrote a nice commit message that leads off
with issue number and issue subject, going forward, we preserve their work
and apply using git am --signoff?
You cowboys and cowgirls have any opinions?
St.Ack
Re: [DISCUSSION] applying patches
Posted by Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>.
Apparently the signoff feature was added for the benefit of Linux's
"Certificate of Origin" requirements. By using the same mechanism, are we
implying that we follow the same guidelines in its use? I don't think it's
common for a committer to assert the OSS validity of the contribution, or
that the contributor has completed the Apache ICLA.
http://gerrit.googlecode.com/svn/documentation/2.0/user-signedoffby.html
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can we enforce the use of --signoff with a hook? If author email isn't @
> apache.org then signoff stamp is required, something like this?
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> It's a little more work, but without the sign-off line you can still find
>> the committer by doing "git log --formate=full"
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I noticed that commit and just sent something to private@ :-) I think
>> it's
>> > a fine practice, but there is no sign off line on that commit so the
>> > committer is not apparent. As long as we can know who committed the
>> patch
>> > at a glance it sounds good to me.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I just committed a message with 'git am' because the author took the
>> > > trouble to write a sweet commit message. Others have been taking the
>> > > trouble to write useful commit messages but up to this I've been just
>> > > applying patches with patch with a commit message that is the issue
>> > number,
>> > > subject, and author only rather than git apply or git am.
>> > >
>> > > On the tail of HBASE-4593, Misty is looking for clarification.
>> > >
>> > > I suggest that if contributor wrote a nice commit message that leads
>> off
>> > > with issue number and issue subject, going forward, we preserve their
>> > work
>> > > and apply using git am --signoff?
>> > >
>> > > You cowboys and cowgirls have any opinions?
>> > > St.Ack
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > - Andy
>> >
>> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> > (via Tom White)
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] applying patches
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
One nice side effect of maintaining the contributor as the author of the
commit is that it's much easier to do community analysis based on
contributors. For example, exiting codebase summary toys (like Ohloh / Open
Hub) rely on the author field.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> If you look over git history, our current process is committer is Author
> and contributor name is added in parenthesis at the end of the first line
> of the commit message. No additional process is needed, nor changes to
> local configuration, if we stick to this practice.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I'd rather have people change their git settings to include the committer
> > rather than add additional process. Though that's just personal
> preference.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I think the author or signoff line should indicate the committer. Not
> > sure
> > > a precommit hook can do that, most committers have multiple emails and
> > dev
> > > boxes and I observe their identity can shift from commit to commit.
> > >
> > > I know that committer identity is available in git metadata, but it
> would
> > > be nice to have this information at a glance in other log views besides
> > > 'full', like '-p', or '--stat', etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can we enforce the use of --signoff with a hook? If author email
> isn't
> > @
> > > > apache.org then signoff stamp is required, something like this?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It's a little more work, but without the sign-off line you can
> still
> > > find
> > > > > the committer by doing "git log --formate=full"
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurtell@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I noticed that commit and just sent something to private@ :-) I
> > > think
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > a fine practice, but there is no sign off line on that commit so
> > the
> > > > > > committer is not apparent. As long as we can know who committed
> the
> > > > patch
> > > > > > at a glance it sounds good to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just committed a message with 'git am' because the author
> took
> > > the
> > > > > > > trouble to write a sweet commit message. Others have been
> taking
> > > the
> > > > > > > trouble to write useful commit messages but up to this I've
> been
> > > just
> > > > > > > applying patches with patch with a commit message that is the
> > issue
> > > > > > number,
> > > > > > > subject, and author only rather than git apply or git am.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On the tail of HBASE-4593, Misty is looking for clarification.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I suggest that if contributor wrote a nice commit message that
> > > leads
> > > > > off
> > > > > > > with issue number and issue subject, going forward, we preserve
> > > their
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > > and apply using git am --signoff?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You cowboys and cowgirls have any opinions?
> > > > > > > St.Ack
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Andy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
> Piet
> > > > Hein
> > > > > > (via Tom White)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
--
Sean
Re: [DISCUSSION] applying patches
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm not arguing for one way only. I'd like to be able to see who committed
> the patch when looking at the log. If people think this is too much to ask
> I will deal with it.
>
>
Agree on being able to figure (easily) who committed the patch.
St.Ack
Re: [DISCUSSION] applying patches
Posted by Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>.
I'm not arguing for one way only. I'd like to be able to see who committed the patch when looking at the log. If people think this is too much to ask I will deal with it.
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> If you look over git history, our current process is committer is Author
>> and contributor name is added in parenthesis at the end of the first line
>> of the commit message. No additional process is needed, nor changes to
>> local configuration, if we stick to this practice.
> Yes. We should continue to do this.
>
> I'm looking for license to also commit patches doing 'git am --signoff'
> when the contributor has taken the time to do a nice write up on what is in
> their contrib.
>
> Or should we have one way only?
>
> St.Ack
Re: [DISCUSSION] applying patches
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> If you look over git history, our current process is committer is Author
> and contributor name is added in parenthesis at the end of the first line
> of the commit message. No additional process is needed, nor changes to
> local configuration, if we stick to this practice.
>
>
Yes. We should continue to do this.
I'm looking for license to also commit patches doing 'git am --signoff'
when the contributor has taken the time to do a nice write up on what is in
their contrib.
Or should we have one way only?
St.Ack
Re: [DISCUSSION] applying patches
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
If you look over git history, our current process is committer is Author
and contributor name is added in parenthesis at the end of the first line
of the commit message. No additional process is needed, nor changes to
local configuration, if we stick to this practice.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'd rather have people change their git settings to include the committer
> rather than add additional process. Though that's just personal preference.
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I think the author or signoff line should indicate the committer. Not
> sure
> > a precommit hook can do that, most committers have multiple emails and
> dev
> > boxes and I observe their identity can shift from commit to commit.
> >
> > I know that committer identity is available in git metadata, but it would
> > be nice to have this information at a glance in other log views besides
> > 'full', like '-p', or '--stat', etc.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Can we enforce the use of --signoff with a hook? If author email isn't
> @
> > > apache.org then signoff stamp is required, something like this?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's a little more work, but without the sign-off line you can still
> > find
> > > > the committer by doing "git log --formate=full"
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I noticed that commit and just sent something to private@ :-) I
> > think
> > > > it's
> > > > > a fine practice, but there is no sign off line on that commit so
> the
> > > > > committer is not apparent. As long as we can know who committed the
> > > patch
> > > > > at a glance it sounds good to me.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I just committed a message with 'git am' because the author took
> > the
> > > > > > trouble to write a sweet commit message. Others have been taking
> > the
> > > > > > trouble to write useful commit messages but up to this I've been
> > just
> > > > > > applying patches with patch with a commit message that is the
> issue
> > > > > number,
> > > > > > subject, and author only rather than git apply or git am.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the tail of HBASE-4593, Misty is looking for clarification.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I suggest that if contributor wrote a nice commit message that
> > leads
> > > > off
> > > > > > with issue number and issue subject, going forward, we preserve
> > their
> > > > > work
> > > > > > and apply using git am --signoff?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You cowboys and cowgirls have any opinions?
> > > > > > St.Ack
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > - Andy
> > > > >
> > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > > Hein
> > > > > (via Tom White)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: [DISCUSSION] applying patches
Posted by Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org>.
I'd rather have people change their git settings to include the committer
rather than add additional process. Though that's just personal preference.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think the author or signoff line should indicate the committer. Not sure
> a precommit hook can do that, most committers have multiple emails and dev
> boxes and I observe their identity can shift from commit to commit.
>
> I know that committer identity is available in git metadata, but it would
> be nice to have this information at a glance in other log views besides
> 'full', like '-p', or '--stat', etc.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can we enforce the use of --signoff with a hook? If author email isn't @
> > apache.org then signoff stamp is required, something like this?
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It's a little more work, but without the sign-off line you can still
> find
> > > the committer by doing "git log --formate=full"
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I noticed that commit and just sent something to private@ :-) I
> think
> > > it's
> > > > a fine practice, but there is no sign off line on that commit so the
> > > > committer is not apparent. As long as we can know who committed the
> > patch
> > > > at a glance it sounds good to me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I just committed a message with 'git am' because the author took
> the
> > > > > trouble to write a sweet commit message. Others have been taking
> the
> > > > > trouble to write useful commit messages but up to this I've been
> just
> > > > > applying patches with patch with a commit message that is the issue
> > > > number,
> > > > > subject, and author only rather than git apply or git am.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the tail of HBASE-4593, Misty is looking for clarification.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suggest that if contributor wrote a nice commit message that
> leads
> > > off
> > > > > with issue number and issue subject, going forward, we preserve
> their
> > > > work
> > > > > and apply using git am --signoff?
> > > > >
> > > > > You cowboys and cowgirls have any opinions?
> > > > > St.Ack
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] applying patches
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
I think the author or signoff line should indicate the committer. Not sure
a precommit hook can do that, most committers have multiple emails and dev
boxes and I observe their identity can shift from commit to commit.
I know that committer identity is available in git metadata, but it would
be nice to have this information at a glance in other log views besides
'full', like '-p', or '--stat', etc.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can we enforce the use of --signoff with a hook? If author email isn't @
> apache.org then signoff stamp is required, something like this?
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > It's a little more work, but without the sign-off line you can still find
> > the committer by doing "git log --formate=full"
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I noticed that commit and just sent something to private@ :-) I think
> > it's
> > > a fine practice, but there is no sign off line on that commit so the
> > > committer is not apparent. As long as we can know who committed the
> patch
> > > at a glance it sounds good to me.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I just committed a message with 'git am' because the author took the
> > > > trouble to write a sweet commit message. Others have been taking the
> > > > trouble to write useful commit messages but up to this I've been just
> > > > applying patches with patch with a commit message that is the issue
> > > number,
> > > > subject, and author only rather than git apply or git am.
> > > >
> > > > On the tail of HBASE-4593, Misty is looking for clarification.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest that if contributor wrote a nice commit message that leads
> > off
> > > > with issue number and issue subject, going forward, we preserve their
> > > work
> > > > and apply using git am --signoff?
> > > >
> > > > You cowboys and cowgirls have any opinions?
> > > > St.Ack
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: [DISCUSSION] applying patches
Posted by Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>.
Can we enforce the use of --signoff with a hook? If author email isn't @
apache.org then signoff stamp is required, something like this?
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> It's a little more work, but without the sign-off line you can still find
> the committer by doing "git log --formate=full"
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I noticed that commit and just sent something to private@ :-) I think
> it's
> > a fine practice, but there is no sign off line on that commit so the
> > committer is not apparent. As long as we can know who committed the patch
> > at a glance it sounds good to me.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I just committed a message with 'git am' because the author took the
> > > trouble to write a sweet commit message. Others have been taking the
> > > trouble to write useful commit messages but up to this I've been just
> > > applying patches with patch with a commit message that is the issue
> > number,
> > > subject, and author only rather than git apply or git am.
> > >
> > > On the tail of HBASE-4593, Misty is looking for clarification.
> > >
> > > I suggest that if contributor wrote a nice commit message that leads
> off
> > > with issue number and issue subject, going forward, we preserve their
> > work
> > > and apply using git am --signoff?
> > >
> > > You cowboys and cowgirls have any opinions?
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] applying patches
Posted by Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>.
It's a little more work, but without the sign-off line you can still find
the committer by doing "git log --formate=full"
Mike
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> I noticed that commit and just sent something to private@ :-) I think it's
> a fine practice, but there is no sign off line on that commit so the
> committer is not apparent. As long as we can know who committed the patch
> at a glance it sounds good to me.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > I just committed a message with 'git am' because the author took the
> > trouble to write a sweet commit message. Others have been taking the
> > trouble to write useful commit messages but up to this I've been just
> > applying patches with patch with a commit message that is the issue
> number,
> > subject, and author only rather than git apply or git am.
> >
> > On the tail of HBASE-4593, Misty is looking for clarification.
> >
> > I suggest that if contributor wrote a nice commit message that leads off
> > with issue number and issue subject, going forward, we preserve their
> work
> > and apply using git am --signoff?
> >
> > You cowboys and cowgirls have any opinions?
> > St.Ack
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] applying patches
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
Yeah. I messed up not adding '--signoff'.
St.Ack
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> I noticed that commit and just sent something to private@ :-) I think it's
> a fine practice, but there is no sign off line on that commit so the
> committer is not apparent. As long as we can know who committed the patch
> at a glance it sounds good to me.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > I just committed a message with 'git am' because the author took the
> > trouble to write a sweet commit message. Others have been taking the
> > trouble to write useful commit messages but up to this I've been just
> > applying patches with patch with a commit message that is the issue
> number,
> > subject, and author only rather than git apply or git am.
> >
> > On the tail of HBASE-4593, Misty is looking for clarification.
> >
> > I suggest that if contributor wrote a nice commit message that leads off
> > with issue number and issue subject, going forward, we preserve their
> work
> > and apply using git am --signoff?
> >
> > You cowboys and cowgirls have any opinions?
> > St.Ack
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] applying patches
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
I noticed that commit and just sent something to private@ :-) I think it's
a fine practice, but there is no sign off line on that commit so the
committer is not apparent. As long as we can know who committed the patch
at a glance it sounds good to me.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> I just committed a message with 'git am' because the author took the
> trouble to write a sweet commit message. Others have been taking the
> trouble to write useful commit messages but up to this I've been just
> applying patches with patch with a commit message that is the issue number,
> subject, and author only rather than git apply or git am.
>
> On the tail of HBASE-4593, Misty is looking for clarification.
>
> I suggest that if contributor wrote a nice commit message that leads off
> with issue number and issue subject, going forward, we preserve their work
> and apply using git am --signoff?
>
> You cowboys and cowgirls have any opinions?
> St.Ack
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)