[Gluster-Maintainers] [Gluster-devel] 'Reviewd-by' tag for commits

Fri Oct 14 17:14:02 UTC 2016

How do we get the following tags in the commit message?

    > Smoke: Gluster Build System <jenkins at build.gluster.org>
    > NetBSD-regression: NetBSD Build System <jenkins at build.gluster.org>
    > CentOS-regression: Gluster Build System <jenkins at build.gluster.org>

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Niels de Vos <ndevos at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 02:21:23PM +0530, Nigel Babu wrote:
> > I've said on this thread before, none of this is easy to do. It needs us
> to
> > fork Gerrit to make our own changes. I would argue that depending on the
> > data from the commit message is folly.
>
> Eventhough we all seem to agree that statistics based on commit messages
> is not correct, it looks like it is an incentive to get reviewing valued
> more. We need to promote the reviewing work somehow, and this is one way
> to do it.
>
> Forking Gerrit is surely not the right thing. But could it not get
> discussed with the rest of the Gerrit community? I hope that the Gerrit
> admins follow the Gerrit project and know how to report feature requests
> or such?
>
> Thanks,
> Niels
>
>
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Niels de Vos <ndevos at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:01:43PM +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri
> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Michael Adam <obnox at samba.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2016-10-05 at 09:45 -0400, Ira Cooper wrote:
> > > > > > "Feedback-given-by: <nosy.person at silly.place>"
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Niels/Nigel,
> > > >        Is this easier to do?
> > >
> > > No idea if this can be done by a Gerrit configuration, I'm not an admin
> > > there :)
> > >
> > > I suspect Gerrit gives the option to run a script after someone pressed
> > > the [submit] button for merging, and before the actual commit is pushed
> > > into the branch. If there is no config option, such a hook-script could
> > > be made to work. But, my Gerrit experience on that level is
> > > non-existent, so I can be completely wrong.
> > >
> > > Niels
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I like that one - thanks! :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael
> > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > On 2016-09-30 at 17:52 +0200, Niels de Vos wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 08:50:12PM +0530, Ravishankar N
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 09/30/2016 06:38 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 07:11:51AM +0530, Pranith Kumar
> > > Karampuri
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > Maybe we can add an additional tag that mentions all the
> > > people
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > did do reviews of older versions of the patch. Not sure
> what
> > > the
> > > > > tag
> > > > > > > > > > would be, maybe just CC?
> > > > > > > > > It depends on what tags would be processed to obtain
> > > statistics on
> > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > contributions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Real statistics would come from Gerrit, not from the 'git
> log'
> > > > > output.
> > > > > > > > We do have a ./extras/who-wrote-glusterfs/ in the sources,
> but
> > > that
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > only to get an idea about the changes that were made and
> should
> > > not
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > used for serious statistics.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is possible to feed the Gerrit comment-stream into things
> like
> > > > > > > > Elasticsearch and get an accurate impression how many reviews
> > > people
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > > (and much more). I hope we can get some contribution diagrams
> > > from
> > > > > > > > someting like this at one point.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Would some kind of Gave-feedback tag for people that left a
> > > comment
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > earlier versions of the patch be appreciated by others? It
> will
> > > show
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the 'git log' who was involved in some way or form.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think this would be fair.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by tags should imho be reserved for the final
> > > > > > > incarnation of the patch. Those mean that the person named
> > > > > > > in the tag has aproved this version of the patch for getting
> > > > > > > into the official tree. A previous version of the patch can
> > > > > > > have been entirely different, so a reviewed-by for that
> > > > > > > previous version may not actually apply to the new version at
> all
> > > > > > > and hence create a false impression!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is also difficult to track all activities by tags,
> > > > > > > and anyone who wants to measure performance and contributions
> > > > > > > only by looking at git commit tags will not be doing several
> > > > > > > people justice. We could add 'discussed-with' or 'designed-by'
> > > > > > > tags, etc ... ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On a serious note, in Samba we use 'Pair-programmed-with' tags,
> > > > > > > because we do pair-programming a lot, but only one person can
> > > > > > > be an author of a git commit ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The 'Gave-feedback' tag I do like. even though it does
> > > > > > > not quite match with the foobar-by pattern of other tags.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Michael
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Gluster-devel mailing list
> > > > > > > Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> > > > > > > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > maintainers mailing list
> > > > > maintainers at gluster.org
> > > > > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Pranith
> > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > maintainers mailing list
> > > > maintainers at gluster.org
> > > > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > maintainers mailing list
> > > maintainers at gluster.org
> > > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > nigelb
>

-- 
Pranith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20161014/9dc5501d/attachment-0001.html>