For the record, this is what I use: http://home.apache.org/~jim/code/svn.merge
Most likely I will change it to have it accept $1 as the names of people to mark as "Reviewed by" via a simple cut/paste of the line from STATUS. > On Dec 23, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote: > > In a branch of a private discussion, some issues with how backports > are committed was raised. > > IMO, our use of STATUS kind of makes the current Reviewed By: a little > misleading in http://people.apache.org/~jorton/svn.merge > > * My older copy of the script doesn't have it at all, and I rarely > edit the "clog" it generates -- meaning I almost never capture the > original reviewers in the commit log. > > * Jim had modified his copy, presumably related to the same confusion > vs. what we call the reviewers in STATUS, but it introduced a > different misleading overlap when the work to port a fix was > noteworthy. > > > Do we want to call the list of reviewers from STATUS mandatory in the > commit to the stable branches? > > I am personally -0 on _requiring_ it as STATUS and backporting can > already be a bit tedious, and ultimately most reviews seem to be > desk-checks. I wouldn't mind if svn.merge required more input and > stopped me from breaking a rule though. > > > -- > Eric Covener > [email protected]
