[asterisk-dev] Tagging commits with issue numbers

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Sunday 28 August 2011 11:59:30 Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:01:16AM -0500, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> > On Sunday 28 August 2011 05:32:01 Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:31:58AM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
> > > > Related wiki page which may need some updating:
> > > > 
> > > > https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Commit+Messages
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > > Also, if the bug tracker will display the list of patches
> > > effectivly, why bother with including part of that information in
> > > patches (only one direction)? Recall that the URL included there is
> > > invalid anyway.
> > 
> > Because there may be more than one patch on the issue, solving the
> > problem in different ways.  The commit message disambiguates as to
> > which patch was actually applied.
> 
> In that case it is the actual commit that should be used, and not the
> attached patch. The attached patch often gets reworked before getting
> applied. Pointing people to the patch may actually be slightly
> misleading.
> 
> But anyway, I have two separate issues with the svnmerge commit message:
> 
> 1. It is very verbose, but adds very little useful information
> 2. If I have to include the commit number, which gets in my way.
> 
> It seems I'm on my own with (2), so I'll consider (1) here:
> 
> Consider
> http://svnview.digium.com/svn/asterisk?view=revision&revision=333410
> 
> You get a lengthy header telling you that this is a merge of r333378
> from https://origsvn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/branches/1.8
> (which is an invalid URL for most people).

This was solved at one point; I believe it was in how the message was
posted to Mantis, by doing a simple string replacement.  We could probably
do the same thing in the svnmerge script.

> This is followed by an extra line of mostly useless metadata (it may
> have been useful if it were at the end). Only then you get the actual
> commit subject.
> 
> So, why not replace all of those headers and indentations with yet
> another tag at the bottom of the message?
> 
> Original-Commit: r333378, branches/1.8
> 
> 
> The rule is that you add it at the end, and thus the one in trunk will
> have:
> 
> Original-Commit: r333378, branches/1.8
> Original-Commit: r333410, branches/10

That sounds acceptable to me.  The main issue is going to be modifying
the svnmerge python script to change how the message is constructed.

-- 
Tilghman