On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:16 AM Nathan Cutler <ncutler(a)suse.com> wrote:
Today it
came to my attention that not all Ceph developers agree with the
following cherry-picking rule:
"if a commit could not be cherry-picked from master, the commit message must
explain why that was not possible" [1]
[1]
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/SubmittingPatches-backports.rst#ch…
From what I've seen myself, we strictly enforce this rule. I agree
with the rationale you've shared above. Any PR against a stable branch
that includes (OR excludes!) commits or fixes not present on master
must explain why.
Thanks for your quick response, Patrick! Would you agree, then, to change the
rule to allow the explanation of "why" to be done outside of the commit
messages
themselves?
Yes, I think having the discussion in the PR is also suitable.
Otherwise where in the commit history would you document a missing
commit form a series in a backport.
My concern is that by intentionally not including the
explanation in the commit
message, we are effectively withholding the explanation from future users of the
git history. To put it another way, folks who are unfortunate enough to be
involved in the kind of forensic examination I described will not benefit from
explanations that are offered up in a PR or tracker issue.
GitHub/tracker discussions are all official metadata associated with
the git history. It's not feasible to make git (commits) the SSOT.
(Maybe when git adds changesets/reviews/issues we can get to that
point. :)
--
Patrick Donnelly, Ph.D.
He / Him / His
Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat Sunnyvale, CA
GPG: 19F28A586F808C2402351B93C3301A3E258DD79D