incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: marking pull request committer correctly
Date Thu, 11 Oct 2012 03:04:02 GMT
I think the committer field is just the user who created the commit, where
the commit is defined by it's hash. If you change the hash in any way, then
the committer becomes you. E.g. it might be enough to do a git pull, then
do a git commit --amend and add change some whitespace in the change
description.



On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Patrick Mueller <pmuellr@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Right. The repositories on git-wip-us automatically maintain an OOB
> > push log that ties each push to a specific @apache.org account,
> > regardless of what the included Git commit messages say.
> >
>
> Ah, cool.  And I guess we can get to this ref-updates.log file if we need
> to, via infra.
>
>
> > On the "Committer" field in a Git commit message; I'm actually not
> > entirely sure if forcing it to be the same as the "Apache committer"
> > who pushes the changes to git-wip-us is a good idea. The "Committer"
> > field has a pretty specific technical meaning in Git and mixing that
> > with the somewhat different meaning that the *committer* term might
> > cause some confusion.
> >
>
> I think that's EXACTLY what you want: code contributor marked as author,
> Apache committer marked as committer.
>
> from: http://git-scm.com/book/ch2-3.html
>
>      You may be wondering what the difference is between author and
>      committer. The author is the person who originally wrote the patch,
>      whereas the committer is the person who last applied the patch.
>
> And that's what struck me as weird; Marcel should have been the author, and
> I should have been the committer.
>
>
> > If we want to mention in the commit message the
> > Apache committer who accepted a given pull request and pushed those
> > commits to the canonical repository, using the Signed-off-by mechanism
> > might be a better alternative. See also some earlier infra-dev@
> > discussion in http://markmail.org/message/ljezsfv2mvzg7gll.
> >
>
> I'm guessing the Signed-off-by thing is a magic comment we'd put in the
> commit?  Actually, wouldn't have helped in this case, since the commit
> fast-forwarded, I didn't even get a chance to add a comment!  Super
> efficient!
>
> Anyway, definitely not interested in something like a signed-off-by
> process.  This is such a minor issue, that I don't think worth trying to
> "fix".  Especially since for pull requests and other non-committer
> contributions, there's likely to be plenty of other context around (Jira
> bugs, ml conversations), that I'm guessing we can always figure out what
> happened anyway.
>
> Although I will likely do a bit more sniffing around for my next pull
> request!
>
> --
> Patrick Mueller
> http://muellerware.org
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message