Hey Ville, On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 11:52, Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:31:31AM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 09:54, Jani Nikula <[email protected]> wrote:> > > > > If the acks and reviews aren't recorded in git log for each commit, they > > > don't exist. > > > > To be fair, given that DRM is about the only subsystem doing it, does > > recording it in a fixed format in the commit matter? ;) > > Answering despite the ";)" :)
It's more of an answer than it deserved! Thanks. > Helps when answering questions like: > - Who might be able review my stuff? Yeah, having this easily collated is really helpful. Exposing that better through the web interface would be nice. The issue I linked to in the previous message would probably be a good entry point for exploring how to better expose this through the GitLab UI and API. My current workflow is to take the commit SHA, go to https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/weston/commit/SHA1, then click through the MR. Not the most optimal thing, but compared to however long I spent trying to diagnose the bug before giving up and deciding I needed to talk to the author, pretty much a drop in the ocean. > - Who can I blame for a regression/bug? All the people who didn't review it as well? > - Who do I need to poke on irc to figure out what is going > on when the patch/commit msg are a mess? This is _definitely_ an earlier failure. > - How well was this thing actually reviewed? Often somewhat > decently approximated by just "who done it?" I gave up at the point where I realised R-b and A-b threw away tons of information. A lot of commit messages carry those tags from me, with all the communication around it skipped. Stuff like 'this seems correct to me and builds but I don't understand FreeRDP at all', or 'this improves things but doesn't fix the root problem for which a lot more work is needed, but we'll take this minimal fix before the release', or whatever. I found that I was spending half my time digging through mail archives anyway to find out what the person actually said, and what their reservations (if any) were. Quite a few times I found comments to the effect of 'this is fine, but the obvious follow-on work to fix the underlying issue is a/b/c/d', which would be the real answer to my question. And despite however many years of mutt, I still find it way quicker to click through the full review history through the web MR interface than scanning through all the mails. But again, that's me and my projects: YMMV. > I suppose if there would a be tool to suck those out from gitlab > when you need them given a specific commit it might work out. > Although that doesn't sound quite as efficient as just having > the information there in the commit msgs. Thinking out loud, I wonder if the `glim` tool couldn't take all the MR review notes with a certain string in them (or just all the top-level notes) and attach them with git notes? Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ dim-tools mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dim-tools
