Open Stack

On 2013-11-22 03:11, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> Based on the recent discussion that came out about not having enough
> information in the commit message when syncing oslo-incubator modules,
> I was thinking that besides encouraging people to write better commit
> messages, we could also improve the script we use to sync those
> modules.
> 
> Some of the changes that I've been thinking of:
> 
>    1) Store the commit sha from which the module was copied from.
>    Every project using oslo, currently keeps the list of modules it
>    is using in `openstack-modules.conf` in a `module` parameter. We
>    could store, along with the module name, the sha of the commit it
>    was last synced from:
> 
>        module=log,commit
> 
>        or
> 
>        module=log
>        log=commit
> 
>    2) Add an 'auto-commit' parameter to the update script that will
>    generate a commit message with the short log of the commits where
>    the modules being updated were modified. Soemthing like:
> 
>        Syncing oslo-incubator modules
> 
>        log.py:
>            commit1: short-message
>            commit2: short-message
>            commit3: short-message
> 
>        lockutils:
>            commit4: short-message
>            commit5: short-message
> 
> #1 will help with figuring out when was the last time a module was
> updated and what changes have been introduced since then.
> 
> #2 won't be the recommended way for writing commit messages. Oslo
> incubator syncs can have different side-effects in every project.
> However, it could be useful for trivial syncs.
> 
> Thoughts?

+1.  I've been thinking along the same lines.  I always try to include 
the git oneline output in my Oslo syncs anyway, but it's not trivial to 
figure out the appropriate ones to include so doing it automatically 
would be fantastic.

One other thought I had was to add the ability to split one Oslo sync up 
into multiple commits, either one per module, or even one per Oslo 
commit for some really large module changes (I'm thinking of the 1000 
line db sync someone mentioned recently).  It would be more review 
churn, but at least it would keep the changes per review down to a more 
reasonable level.   I'm not positive it would be beneficial, but I 
thought I'd mention it.

-Ben