Open Stack

On 07/05/2018 09:13 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2018-07-05 09:03:44 -0700 (-0700), Andrew Grimberg wrote:
>> On 07/04/2018 06:57 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> [...]
>>> For that matter, setting the topic based on the local branch
>>> name could also get tossed while we're at it, and just keep the
>>> -t option for directly specifying a change topic when people
>>> really want to do it at time of upload.
>>
>> Personally I would find this a regression. We inform our
>> communities to use local branches and git-review all the time and
>> tell them it will take care of setting the topic as long as they
>> do that. It's an extremely useful feature and I rely upon it
>> daily! I would hate to have to add an extra flag to my review
>> pushes.
> 
> Very helpful feedback, thanks! I'm on the fence about that one
> simply because the only reason git-review cared to set review topics
> at all originally was that at the time Gerrit only allowed you to do
> that when pushing a new commit. They've since separated topic
> modification out into its own action which can be done from the
> WebUI or API on an existing change without altering anything else
> about it. I do find the topic-branch-sets-change-topic behavior sort
> of unclean from an idempotency standpoint, as `git-review -d`
> followed by `git review` will alter the topic of your existing
> change to be the change index number when I'd rather it just left
> the topic alone.

Perhaps it shouldn't try setting / resetting the topic if the local
branch is refs/review/<user>/<change_number> ? That could definitely be
cleaned up and is a very minor frustration to me, but is very rarely hit
(that I'm aware of) in our communities.

> My bigger concern is that git-review attempts to autodetect possible
> topic names based on (at this point increasingly outmoded)
> OpenStack-community-specific commit message footer contents like
> Implements and Closes-Bug. These I see as a nuisance and
> codification of OpenStackisms we should cleanse from the codebase.

Oh, interesting, I didn't know that it tried to do that. We don't have
those footer semantics in any of our projects at present so it's never
been something that comes up.

-Andy-

-- 
Andrew J Grimberg
Lead, IT Release Engineering
The Linux Foundation

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-infra/attachments/20180705/e784318b/attachment-0001.sig>