RetroSearch Browse

Sat Nov 19 23:07:55 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-November/114527.html

In article 
<CAKmKYaB6DcW=CMtbXWxHFLVfwZSQQHCFd8OS0v2TPc=pwfXB-Q at mail.gmail.com>,
 Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan at ochtman.nl> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 20:41, Petri Lehtinen <petri at digip.org> wrote:
> >> Generally speaking, it's more useful for the checkin metadata to
> >> reflect who actually did the checkin, since that's the most useful
> >> information for the tracker and buildbot integration.
> > At least in git, the commit metadata contains both author and
> > committer (at least if they differ). Maybe mercurial has this too?
> It does not.
> 
> Personally, I find it more appropriate to have the original patch
> author in the "official" metadata, mostly because I personally find it
> very satisfying to see my name in the changelog on hgweb and the like.
> My own experience with that makes me think that it's probably helpful
> in engaging contributors.

As Nick pointed out, it's important that who did the checkin is recorded 
for python-dev workflow reasons.  Ensuring that the original patch 
submitter is mentioned in the commit message and, as appropriate, in any 
Misc/NEWS item seems to me an appropriate and sufficient way to give 
that recognition.  The NEWS file will eventually get installed on 
countless systems around the world: hard to beat that!

WRT the original commit message, a more flexible approach to applying 
patches is to use "hg qimport" rather than "hg import".  It is then 
possible to edit the patch, make the necessary changes to Misc/NEWS, 
edit the original patch commit comment using "hg qrefresh -e" and then 
commit the patch with "hg qfinish".

-- 
 Ned Deily,
 nad at acm.org

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-November/114527.html below:

[Python-Dev] patch metadata - to use or not to use?