Hello Alasdair, * Alasdair Lumsden <[email protected]> [2011-08-06 01:20]: > Hi Guido, > > On 08/ 5/11 11:42 PM, Guido Berhoerster wrote: > >Hello, > > > >looking at the first review for oi-build I think it is suboptimal > >that changes put up for review are already committed, changes > >requested by reviewers can lead to a number of additional commits > >which show up in the master repo and make changes more difficult > >to follow, furthermore I would find it desirable to have > >Reviewed-by headers in the commit message documenting our review > >process. I'm not familiar with how Bitbucket works but off the > >top of my head I can think of a number of solutions, changes > >could be kept in MQ during review and then be turned into commits > >before integration, there is a histedit Mercurial extension, > >there is webrev and there may be further options. > > > >It would also be nice to define some minimum time period for > >which stuff is put up for review in order to give interested > >parties enough time to look at changes. > > > >Any thoughts/opinions on this? > > I was expecting the committer to use "hg pull --no-commit" and pull > each of the changesets from bitbucket, then commit and push to the > master repo - that way there is only one commit per change. In the > commit message it can reference the author + reviewers. > > The beauty of using bitbucket is that it makes it really easy for > new less seasoned developers to contribute, and using "--no-commit" > solves the "messy commits" issue.
I suppose you mean that the contributor hg exports all changesets and the committer then uses "hg import --no-commit"? If so, then yes, that would do it. In that case we use something like ----8<---- <bug no> bug description Author: Name <email> Reviewed by: Name <email> Reviewed by: Name <email> [...] ---->8---- as the format for commit message? -- Guido Berhoerster _______________________________________________ oi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
