You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ambari.apache.org by Nate Cole <nc...@apache.org> on 2018/01/11 23:37:40 UTC
New JIRA - Commit messages
All,
Previous to the fork/pull request framework, we used to use commit message variations like so:
“AMBARI-XXXXXX. Great change for stack (ncole)” (for committers)
or
“AMBARI-XXXXXX. Great change for stack (Joe Smith via ncole)” (for contributors)
Commits have started abandoning this syntax.
While I agree that the new workflow makes it clear the committer vs the author, it was useful to search just commit messages and pair them with the author.
I would propose we keep the “(username)” practice with commit message
since we don’t always use github for viewing history. Contributors can use something like:
“(Joe Smith via pull request)” or just “(Joe Smith)”
Thoughts?
-Nate
RE: New JIRA - Commit messages
Posted by Dmytro Grinenko <dg...@hortonworks.com>.
More -1 than +1, below is why:
There is only one issue with Author/Committer fields. Obviously it is normal situation when people working from several devices or environments
which were configured not at the same time. So one environment could have, for example Dmitry Grinenko as an author; another dgrinenko .
With mail it is same situation, while previously were used same mail address for commits, now it could be in @apache domain, @users.noreply.github.com or one from
primary mail configured in github account settings.
All such thinks making search by author and email more complex, and probably hell if you doing this in some tools. And in this situation maintaining same style naming
convention for summary field could help
-----Original Message-----
From: Myroslav Papyrkovskyy [mailto:mpapyrkovskyy@hortonworks.com]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 2:48 PM
To: dev@ambari.apache.org
Subject: Re: New JIRA - Commit messages
+1 for removing redundant user names
author is always clearly visible via all cli tools / IDE.
Only reason I see we used it previously is that committers had to manually apply patch and create commit.
This required more git knowledge and additional info from contributor to set author value correctly.
So name in commit message was nice and easy solution we don’t require anymore.
Myroslav
> 12 січ. 2018 р. о 01:50 Vivek Ratnavel <vi...@apache.org> написав(ла):
>
> Hi Nate,
>
> I find the addition of (username) to commit messages as redundant,
> since the user who contributed can be identified from the "Author" tag
> in git command line. I use "git log --grep=AMBARI-XXXXX" and get an
> output with the author tag. Regardless of the committer who merged the
> pull request, the "Author" tag will contain the original contributors
> name. In your example, it will be "Author: Joe Smith". The PR might
> have been merged by any committer with write access, but it becomes irrelevant.
>
> commit 1eead54f467c7ff6abafa908abf5b66a7278a45a
> Author: Olivér Szabó <ol...@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed Jan 10 21:13:12 2018 +0100
>
> [AMBARI-22749] ADDENDUM: Create Pull Request Template - fix rat
> check
> (#82)
>
> commit 493612494740ab9b6a7b1e470951baf5cfbee78e
> Merge: 30f3a04 1bb2355
> Author: Vivek Ratnavel Subramanian <vi...@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue Jan 9 13:00:09 2018 -0800
>
> Merge pull request #70 from vivekratnavel/AMBARI-22749-trunk
>
> [AMBARI-22749] Create Pull Request Template
>
> -Vivek Ratnavel
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Nate Cole <nc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Previous to the fork/pull request framework, we used to use commit
>> message variations like so:
>>
>>
>>
>> “AMBARI-XXXXXX. Great change for stack (ncole)” (for committers)
>>
>> or
>>
>> “AMBARI-XXXXXX. Great change for stack (Joe Smith via ncole)” (for
>> contributors)
>>
>>
>>
>> Commits have started abandoning this syntax.
>>
>>
>>
>> While I agree that the new workflow makes it clear the committer vs
>> the author, it was useful to search just commit messages and pair
>> them with the author.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would propose we keep the “(username)” practice with commit message
>>
>>
>>
>> since we don’t always use github for viewing history. Contributors
>> can use something like:
>>
>>
>>
>> “(Joe Smith via pull request)” or just “(Joe Smith)”
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -Nate
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: New JIRA - Commit messages
Posted by Myroslav Papyrkovskyy <mp...@hortonworks.com>.
+1 for removing redundant user names
author is always clearly visible via all cli tools / IDE.
Only reason I see we used it previously is that committers had to manually apply patch and create commit.
This required more git knowledge and additional info from contributor to set author value correctly.
So name in commit message was nice and easy solution we don’t require anymore.
Myroslav
> 12 січ. 2018 р. о 01:50 Vivek Ratnavel <vi...@apache.org> написав(ла):
>
> Hi Nate,
>
> I find the addition of (username) to commit messages as redundant, since
> the user who contributed can be identified from the "Author" tag in git
> command line. I use "git log --grep=AMBARI-XXXXX" and get an output with
> the author tag. Regardless of the committer who merged the pull request,
> the "Author" tag will contain the original contributors name. In your
> example, it will be "Author: Joe Smith". The PR might have been merged by
> any committer with write access, but it becomes irrelevant.
>
> commit 1eead54f467c7ff6abafa908abf5b66a7278a45a
> Author: Olivér Szabó <ol...@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed Jan 10 21:13:12 2018 +0100
>
> [AMBARI-22749] ADDENDUM: Create Pull Request Template - fix rat check
> (#82)
>
> commit 493612494740ab9b6a7b1e470951baf5cfbee78e
> Merge: 30f3a04 1bb2355
> Author: Vivek Ratnavel Subramanian <vi...@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue Jan 9 13:00:09 2018 -0800
>
> Merge pull request #70 from vivekratnavel/AMBARI-22749-trunk
>
> [AMBARI-22749] Create Pull Request Template
>
> -Vivek Ratnavel
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Nate Cole <nc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Previous to the fork/pull request framework, we used to use commit message
>> variations like so:
>>
>>
>>
>> “AMBARI-XXXXXX. Great change for stack (ncole)” (for committers)
>>
>> or
>>
>> “AMBARI-XXXXXX. Great change for stack (Joe Smith via ncole)” (for
>> contributors)
>>
>>
>>
>> Commits have started abandoning this syntax.
>>
>>
>>
>> While I agree that the new workflow makes it clear the committer vs the
>> author, it was useful to search just commit messages and pair them with the
>> author.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would propose we keep the “(username)” practice with commit message
>>
>>
>>
>> since we don’t always use github for viewing history. Contributors can
>> use something like:
>>
>>
>>
>> “(Joe Smith via pull request)” or just “(Joe Smith)”
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -Nate
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: New JIRA - Commit messages
Posted by Vivek Ratnavel <vi...@apache.org>.
Hi Nate,
I find the addition of (username) to commit messages as redundant, since
the user who contributed can be identified from the "Author" tag in git
command line. I use "git log --grep=AMBARI-XXXXX" and get an output with
the author tag. Regardless of the committer who merged the pull request,
the "Author" tag will contain the original contributors name. In your
example, it will be "Author: Joe Smith". The PR might have been merged by
any committer with write access, but it becomes irrelevant.
commit 1eead54f467c7ff6abafa908abf5b66a7278a45a
Author: Olivér Szabó <ol...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Jan 10 21:13:12 2018 +0100
[AMBARI-22749] ADDENDUM: Create Pull Request Template - fix rat check
(#82)
commit 493612494740ab9b6a7b1e470951baf5cfbee78e
Merge: 30f3a04 1bb2355
Author: Vivek Ratnavel Subramanian <vi...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Jan 9 13:00:09 2018 -0800
Merge pull request #70 from vivekratnavel/AMBARI-22749-trunk
[AMBARI-22749] Create Pull Request Template
-Vivek Ratnavel
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Nate Cole <nc...@apache.org> wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> Previous to the fork/pull request framework, we used to use commit message
> variations like so:
>
>
>
> “AMBARI-XXXXXX. Great change for stack (ncole)” (for committers)
>
> or
>
> “AMBARI-XXXXXX. Great change for stack (Joe Smith via ncole)” (for
> contributors)
>
>
>
> Commits have started abandoning this syntax.
>
>
>
> While I agree that the new workflow makes it clear the committer vs the
> author, it was useful to search just commit messages and pair them with the
> author.
>
>
>
> I would propose we keep the “(username)” practice with commit message
>
>
>
> since we don’t always use github for viewing history. Contributors can
> use something like:
>
>
>
> “(Joe Smith via pull request)” or just “(Joe Smith)”
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Nate
>
>
>
>