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?
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.
Nathan