Hi Willy! On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 11:22:14AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 09:32:29AM +0000, Egor Shestakov wrote: > > Hi everyone! > > > > I've just noticed that nobody is using `git describe` in backport > > explanation. I suppose it may be convenient sometimes to mark certain > > commit and version where a problem appears. Does this approach has some > > drawbacks? > > What do you mean ? I'm personally using git describe multiple times > a day to know in which version a commit was merged. But I don't see > the relation with backports here.
I mean in commit message when explaining need for backporting as I did in my last contribution: > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] BUG/MINOR: startup: fix allocation error message of > progname string > > Initially when init_early was introduced the progname string was a local > used for temporary storage of log_tag. Now it's global and detached from > log_tag enough. Thus, in the past we could inform that log_tag > allocation has been failed but not now. > > Must be backported since the progname string became global, that is > v3.1-dev9-96-g49772c55e Perhaps I should have added some context to the discussion by starting it with the patch. > > I see only some awkwardness i.e. v2.6-dev1-142-g34527d535, > > only "2.6" and "34527d535" are helpful for backporters, maybe "dev1" too, > > but I'm not sure. Certainly this approach is not always applicable, > > especially when a problem was made by many commits and it's unclean > > what exactly is to blame for this. > > I really have no idea what you're speaking about unfortunately :-( > Care to show where you saw a version (or commit id?) that was unclear > and what you'd have expected instead ? I talked about drawbacks of this approach here. The commit 34527d535 was taken almost randomly and used as an example of reference. William explained everything to me well. On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 11:25:01AM +0100, William Lallemand wrote: > Hi Egor, > > I'm not sure what you mean, most of the time we are just specifying in which > branches the patch need to be backported. (3.3, 3.2, 3.1 etc.) > > When a bug is more complex and need a more descriptive analyze we use the > commit ID and the subject to describe commit that we refer to. But having the > whole `git describe` for that is not really useful. Thanks! -- Egor Shestakov egor ascii(0x40) ved1 ascii(0x2E) me
