On 10/26/2010 03:29 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:22:01 -0400
Adam Young<ayo...@redhat.com>  wrote:

On 10/26/2010 02:08 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:40:11 -0400
Adam Young<ayo...@redhat.com>   wrote:

We've been doing this informally for a while, and I think, if we
all agree to the format, it will help keep track of patches, ACKs,
and commits.

1.  Patch naming
Example patch name:

Format:  username-project-seq[-update]-description.extension

username:  Your Fedora account name.
project name:   always 'freeeipa'

Are these really necessary ?
We have the name of the author in the patch anyway, and freeipa
(with 2 'e's not 3 :-P) seem really redundant.

Otherwise, we get into a conflict over who''s patch 519 it is, and we
have no way to order it.

We've had enough issues where patch 11 requires patch 10 that it is
just cleaner to try to apply all patches from a given developer in
If the problem is tracking which patches have been applied an which are
needed wouldn't it be easier instead if each developer published an
official tree with the patches he proposes for inclusion ?

That way all you need to do is a git log origin/master..dev_tree and
you have all pending patches and the order they are applied to.

Looks to me *much* handier then trying to order them based on file
names and arbitrary sequence numbers.

I'll admit this would be useful, but it would be another process that we don't have now, that I was trying to avoid. We all have git repos on fedorapeople. The trick is to deal with patches that have to get changed prior to commit, hence the numbering of -2 -3 after the seq number.

Really, the seq number is not needed, but makes a nice ready shorthand for the patch. Pavel, Endi and I often refer to patches by number, like "your patch 0019" which makes it handy. The increasing seq approach to detect a missing packet works in TCP, so why not for us?

If a patch addresses a ticket in Trac, the second line of the
commit should be the URL to track with the Ticket number.  For
example: https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/339

This part is worth, but I think we should require only the bug
number and have the full URL as a nice optional.

I just copy and paste from the browser.  It does make it clear
whether we are talking about Trac or Bugzilla.
bugzilla numbers flies around the 600k mark, looks pretty easy to tell
which is which unless we have a sudden, dramatic spike in tickets
filed against the trac instance :)
Yeah, but the full URL approach is self documenting.


Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to