Thanks Joe! On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Joseph Smith <yasumo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I’m ambivalent either way, but overall sounds like a good path forward, so > filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1147 < > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1147> > > > > On Feb 23, 2015, at 10:55, Joshua Cohen <jco...@twopensource.com> wrote: > > > > If we decide to remove the 'Testing Done' section from commit messages > then > > we should definitely update CONTRIBUTING.md[1] to codify the practice. > > > > [1] > https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Bill Farner <wfar...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> I'm generally -1 to requiring humans to perform (what i perceive to be) > >> superfluous redundant tasks. > >> > >> In this case, the standard suite of tests should be expected as part of > any > >> patch affecting code, which is why the review bot runs them. For that > >> reason, i've mostly been using 'Testing done' to reference additional > >> testing. > >> > >> I'm a stronger -1 on including this field in commit messages, for the > >> reason Maxim notes above. > >> > >> -=Bill > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Maxim Khutornenko <ma...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I am +1 on filling the test section as it may be a good indicator of > >>> what testing has been attempted (e.g. java-only, python-only, python > >>> sub-target, vagrant e2e, vagrant manual). > >>> > >>> I am -1 on having this included into the commit message as it blows up > >>> the commit message size and makes for a hard to read arbitrary > >>> length/formatted commit. The RB link should be enough to get commit > >>> details and testing done. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Joshua Cohen < > jco...@twopensource.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> This came up in a review and I figured it'd be better discussed here > >>> rather > >>>> than in a review that most folks probably aren't reading. > >>>> > >>>> Do people find value in this section being filled in? The argument > >>> against > >>>> is generally that it's always the same value and if we wait for a ship > >> it > >>>> from ReviewBot we have assurance that everything is kosher. The > >> argument > >>>> for is that it serves as an example for new committers on how to run > >>> tests, > >>>> however this was on the assumption that the full commit message from > >> `rbt > >>>> patch` was used. It seems that some people edit the testing done > >> section > >>>> out before merging commits from RB(?). > >>>> > >>>> Thoughts? > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> Joshua > >>> > >> > >
