On 11/02/2017 04:08 PM, John Johansen wrote: > On 11/02/2017 01:03 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote: >> On 11/02/2017 03:00 PM, John Johansen wrote: >>> ] >>>> We walked through a merge yesterday with this merge request: >>>> >>>> https://gitlab.com/apparmor/apparmor/merge_requests/1 >>>> >>>> The audit trail of who merged the code is implicitly present in the >>>> merge commit. By default, there's no information about who reviewed the >>>> changes but the merge commit contains a mention of where to find the >>>> merge request and that page will contain much more info about who >>>> reviewed which parts of the merge request. >>>> >>> That makes the dangerous assumption we keep our infrastructure on gitlab, >>> and don't endup migrating again (this is the 4 or 5 migration in the >>> projects history). I would strongly prefer having that information >>> integral to the commit message. >>> >>>> I'm fine with the default merge commit message. I think Steve had an >>>> issue with the subject line of the default merge commit message. I'll >>>> let him voice his opposition to it and maybe he'll have a better >>>> suggestion. >>>> I am really not happy with with what I have seen so far. >>> >>> Merge branch 'make-variable' into 'master' >>> >>> all: Use the MAKE variable >>> >>> See merge request apparmor/apparmor!1 >>> >>> >>> uhmm, no that really fails the migration test >> >> Please provide a suggested commit message format that we can all follow. >> > I don't have one, I am really not too bothered with the format. I don't > even care if people are consistent with it. > > What is missing is a couple critical pieces of information. Who was > involved in the merge discussion doing both the reviewing and acking. > Partly as breadcrumbs in the future partly because I want a more > permanent form of acknowledgement of the contribution, which is > both critical and all too easily overlooked. > > I don't even care if it shows up on every patch in the merge or just > the merge message. I just want the info available in the logs, > instead of in the meta info stored in the cloud that may one day > disappear.
Does anyone else have strong feelings about this and care to suggest a format/process? We're seemingly blocked on accepting merge requests otherwise. Tyler
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
