Hi David, I find having the "commented" and "reviewed" distinctions a bit subjective. In my opinion, distinguishing between "approved-by" and "reviewed-by" is as far as I would go. Regarding the Jira trailer, I don't have any strong opinion, but it does help in the case of a PR working on different issues at the same time.
Best, On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 2:50 PM David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback! A few common answers first: > > I think "Approved-by" should be the only required trailer. Since approving > a PR implies a review, I think we can keep the mandatory trailers just to a > single one. > > "Co-authored-by" is added automatically by GitHub if a PR has commits from > another author. I don't think we can modify this. > > "Signed-off-by" is added automatically by GitHub if a PR has commits which > were cryptographically signed (e.g. "git commit -S"). Again, we can't > control this. > > For the two trailers automatically added by GitHub, if we include them > explicitly in the PR body they will not be added a second time by GH. For > an example, see > https://github.com/apache/kafka-merge-queue-sandbox/pull/68 and > the resulting commit > > https://github.com/apache/kafka-merge-queue-sandbox/commit/a100107be3cb7bd2256acc9552f3697a597b86e9 > . > The reason we want to add them explicitly is that if we don't, GitHub will > add them automatically below a blank line which will break other trailers. > > > --- > > Ismael, > > 1) Yes, I would love to see this > 2) GitHub arguably uses Signed-off-by incorrectly, but it's out of our > control. > > > José, > > I would like to reserve "Approved-by" for the binding committer approval of > the PR. As Ismael suggested offline, we could use the following: > > Commented-by: left any comment on the PR (any contributor) > Reviewed-by: did a full review on the PR (any contributor) > Approved-by: committer(s) who approved the PR > > Chia, > > I personally don't find the Jira ticket in the commit subject to be very > useful, but this is probably a contentious opinion :) Moving it to a > trailer lets us reference multiple tickets or other resources so we can > still search by ticket number. We can leave the KAFKA-12345 in the commit > subject. > > > Kirk, > > I'd like to automate this as much as possible. I think we can eventually > have all of the important trailers automatically populated. > > > > -David > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 3:00 PM Kirk True <k...@kirktrue.pro> wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > > In general, I'm in favor of adding information where reasonably possible. > > > > How are these header values populated by the merging committer? Magic or > > manual? > > > > I agree with others that adding so many additional "*-by" headers could > be > > confusing, leading to inconsistent usage. Is the equivalent of the > > "Signed-off-by" header already captured by git/GitHub on merge? > > > > Thanks, > > Kirk > > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, at 5:06 PM, David Arthur wrote: > > > Hello Kafka community! > > > > > > I wanted to start a discussion around our Git commits and the metadata > we > > > keep in them. > > > > > > We have historically used the "Reviewers" Git trailer [1] to indicate > who > > > had reviewed a commit. Originally, it seems we used this field to > > indicate > > > the committer who approved the change (per our By-Laws). But over time, > > its > > > usage has expanded to include anyone (committer or not) who left a > > comment > > > on the PR. > > > > > > I think acknowledging reviews is very important for our community, and > I > > > want to continue doing this. > > > > > > I also think it is important to record the committer who approved a > given > > > PR. > > > > > > Besides improving the quality of our Git log, I'm raising this issue > > > because of a limitation/quirk I've discovered in GitHub. While > > researching > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19242 I found that GitHub will > > > automatically re-wrap the text of the PR body to fit 72 characters. > This > > > will blindly break long "Reviewers" lines (which we regularly exceed). > > This > > > will make it difficult to easily find reviewers of PRs using the Git > log. > > > > > > I would like to propose that we start using the following Git trailers > in > > > our PRs: > > > > > > * Reviewed-by: anyone who left feedback on the PR > > > - * Approved-by: committers who approved the PR > > > - * Helped-by: shout-outs for inspiration or significant help > > > - * Signed-off-by: commit signatory > > > - * Fixes: KAFKA-12345 < > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-12345> > > > - * References: KIP-123, KAFKA-23456, apache/flink#1234, etc > > > > > > Each "-by" trailer should include only a single individual using the > > > standard "First Last <email>" format. Multiple instances of the same > > > trailer are allowed. Before merging, we would use a GitHub Action to > > verify > > > that at least one "Approved-by" is present. > > > > > > This accomplishes a few things: > > > > > > * Works around the GitHub 72 character limit > > > * Keeps a cleaner record of reviewers vs approvers > > > * Allows us to move metadata out of the commit subject, if desired > (e.g., > > > KAFKA-12345) > > > > > > Structuring the metadata in this way allows us to use standard git > > commands > > > to parse the commits. This helps us move towards a fully automated > > process > > > where we populate these fields from the GitHub Pull Request data. > > > > > > Let me know what you think! > > > > > > David Arthur > > > > > > [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-interpret-trailers > > > > > > > > -- > David Arthur > -- [image: Aiven] <https://www.aiven.io> *Josep Prat* Engineering Director, Streaming Services, *Aiven* josep.p...@aiven.io | +491715557497 aiven.io <https://www.aiven.io> | <https://www.facebook.com/aivencloud> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/aiven/> <https://twitter.com/aiven_io> *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa, Hannu Valtonen, Anna Richardson, Kenneth Chen Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
