>> The full context here, from the current site:
>> "As opposed to the SCCS delta comment, the putback comment should have an
>> additional line, of one of the following two formats, either:
>>
>> Contributed by Firstname Lastname.
>>
>> or
>>
>> Contributed by Firstname Lastname <something at example dot com>.
>>
>> Which format to use is up to the contributor."
>>
>> So.... I assume s/SCCS delta/Mercurial changeset/ but don't know
>> what to do s/putback comment/ with...
>
> Crap, sorry, Val, I didn't read carefully enough.
>
> There is NOT a "putback comment" analog with Mercurial.  You push a
> changegroup, consisting of one or more changesets, each of which has
> changeset comments.
>
> The way you do this in Mercurial SHOULD be by having the contributor as
> the user in the changeset that the sponsor is pushing.
>
> Sometime tomorrow, can you pop over to #onnv-scm on freenode, and discuss
> this with the team?

So Val did this, and here's what we came up with, plus some additions 
that writing it out made me think of:

The existing SCCS version:

> Since the contributor's name and e-mail address are listed in the bug 
> report, the SCCS delta comment should be the usual bug-ID and synopsis 
> plus any ARC cases: the contributor's name should not be listed.

The Mercurial version:

> The contributed changeset(s) should be committed by the Contributor, not 
> the Sponsor.  This should be done using either "login <e-mail at address>" 
> or "full name <e-mail at address>" format for hg user.  If the Contributor 
> does a commit and supplies a Mercurial bundle of the changeset(s), this 
> will be done correctly.  If the Contributor supplies a patch, and the 
> Sponsor then applies the patch and commits the changes, they will need 
> to use "hg commit -u" or "hg recommit -u" to set this correctly.
>
> When the Sponsor pushes the changes to the gate, the From: field of the 
> notification e-mail will identify the Sponsor, not the Contributor. 
> Both Sponsor and Contributor can be identified through either the bug 
> report(s) or the RTI.

--Mark


Reply via email to