Open Stack

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:08 PM, James E. Blair <corvus at inaugust.com> wrote:
> Mathieu Gagné <mgagne at calavera.ca> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Ben Nemec <openstack at nemebean.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm curious what this means as far as best practices for inter-patch
>>> references.  In the past my understanding was the the change id was
>>> preferred, both because if gerrit changed its URL format the change id links
>>> would be updated appropriately, and also because change ids can be looked up
>>> offline in git commit messages.  Would that still be the case for everything
>>> except depends-on now?
>
> Yes, that's a down-side of URLs.  I personally think it's fine to keep
> using change-ids for anything other than Depends-On, though in many of
> those cases the commit sha may work as well.
>
>> That's my concern too. Also AFAIK, Change-Id is branch agnostic. This
>> means you can more easily cherry-pick between branches without having
>> to change the URL to match the new branch for your dependencies.
>
> Yes, there is a positive and negative aspect to this issue.
>
> On the one hand, for those times where it was convenient to say "depend
> on this change in all its forms across all branches of all projects",
> one must now add a URL for each.
>
> On the other hand, with URLs, it is now possible to indicate that a
> change specifically depends on another change targeted to one branch, or
> targeted to several branches.  Simply list each URL (or don't) as
> appropriate.  That wasn't possible before -- it wall all or none.
>
> -Jim
>

> The old syntax will continue to work for a while

I still believe Change-Id should be supported and not removed as
suggested. The use of URL assumes you have access to Gerrit to fetch
more information about the change.
This might not always be true or possible, especially when Gerrit is
kept private and only the git repository is replicated publicly and
you which to cherry-pick something (and its dependencies) from it.

--
Mathieu