>> My proposal is to use github's feature of Co-author +1. The commit script would have to be updated to incorporate this feature.
>> if someone participate in the review of PR, no matter whether he/she is a committer, we all need include his/her name We already do this when commit a change so reviewers get credits as well and we can keep it this way unless there is a better approach. On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 11:23 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, it is a good idea to have a common practice for tracking the original > author. > > IMHO this is up to the person who is picking up an old patch, it is his own > responsibility. > > IIRC In Bookkeeper we keep the original author of the patch if the patch is > a straight port from another private company fork with minimal changes. > > Having a Co-author is good from my side. I am not sure we can force it > > My 2cents > > Enrico > > Il mer 8 mag 2019, 19:31 Brian Nixon <brian.nixon...@gmail.com> ha > scritto: > > > +1 to the idea of multiple authors, particularly for rescued code > > > > -1 to including all reviewers in the commit proper, this information is > > easily enough found from poking at the mail archive where "original > author" > > requires studying a ticket on jira > > > > awesome idea! > > > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 6:32 AM Norbert Kalmar > <nkal...@cloudera.com.invalid > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Sorry everyone for the multiple emails... > > > So, I get your suggestion now Maoling, sorry for the confusion. > > > We already indicate the reviewer if it's from an apache email, as it > > looks > > > to me. (Doesn't have to be ZooKeeper committer). We should add external > > > emails as well. > > > > > > So I just clarified this with Andor, looks like this is a manual entry > > (the > > > names/emails itself) during the commit (script). > > > > > > Let's hear what others think :) > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:24 PM Norbert Kalmar <nkal...@cloudera.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Well, HBase does it for example, commits have a "Signed-off-by: ..." > > > line. > > > > > > > > All right, votes on for co-author and signed-off-by :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:58 PM Norbert Kalmar <nkal...@cloudera.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Thanks Maoling, I also think encouraging code review as well is a > good > > > >> idea, but, unfortunately I have a "but" :) > > > >> I see two issues with including reviewers in the commit message. > > > >> First, I don't think there is a method to automate this, although I > > > think > > > >> the commit script the committers are using can be modified to > include > > > it. > > > >> Otherwise doing manually would complicate merging PRs for > committers. > > > >> My other, bigger issue is that there is nothing to track this > > > >> information. At least I am not aware of anything. What I mean is > > Github > > > >> tracks authors of the commits. But what would we use the reviewers > > > >> information? If you just want to check reviewers for whatever > reason, > > > there > > > >> is a filter for that already on github, in the Pull Request view. > And > > > this > > > >> would also make the commit message more "bloated". > > > >> > > > >> I'm not saying we shouldn't do this (not a -1 from my side), I just > > have > > > >> my concerns mentioned above. > > > >> > > > >> Is there any Apache project doing this? Just out of curiosity. > > > >> > > > >> Regards, > > > >> Norbert > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:34 PM Justin Ling Mao < > > > maoling199210...@sina.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> +1,A very good Suggestion.Thanks Norbert.I also suggest about the > > > >>> sign-off of the Reviewers' name.For the incentive, if someone > > > participate > > > >>> in the review of PR, no matter whether he/she is a committer, we > all > > > need > > > >>> include his/her name? > > > >>> > > > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > > > >>> From: Norbert Kalmar <nkal...@cloudera.com.INVALID> > > > >>> To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org > > > >>> Subject: [Suggestion] Use Co-authored-by in commit messages > > > >>> Date: 2019-05-08 17:36 > > > >>> > > > >>> Hi Devs, > > > >>> I've got this idea from HBase. > > > >>> So: when there is a patch that is abandoned by its original author > > for > > > >>> any > > > >>> reason, and it can no longer be merged, someone comes by, and asks > to > > > >>> continue to work on it. Usually the reply is to use the change > freely > > > or > > > >>> no > > > >>> reply at all. Either way, what people end up doing is a new pull > > > request, > > > >>> and (correct me if I'm wrong) we do not have a standardized method > > how > > > to > > > >>> indicate, or even to indicate at all the original author. > > > >>> My proposal is to use github's feature of Co-author, which is a way > > of > > > >>> attributing multiple authors of a given commit. See more details > > here: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > > https://help.github.com/en/articles/creating-a-commit-with-multiple-authors > > > >>> I wouldn't think this needs to be forced or anything on future PRs, > > but > > > >>> it's a nice thing to have. And if someone sees an old patch, this > > could > > > >>> give more incentive to continue to work on it, knowing there's a > > > >>> guideline > > > >>> in the HowToContribute guide to credit him/her. > > > >>> I can update the guide at > > > >>> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToContribute > > > if > > > >>> the reception is positive. > > > >>> Regards, > > > >>> Norbert > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >
