@Lefty : Nothing happens if someone doesn't follow convention. I don't know if this can be enforced automatically. @Sergey : I don't know enough git to answer that. If someone can make this enforceable that will be good, but its not required.
Others, Seems like there is an agreement here. I will update wiki with instructions soon. Thanks, Ashutosh On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Sergey Shelukhin <ser...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > The existing approach appears to be “HIVE-XXXXX : fix the bugs (John Doe, > reviewed by John Smith)” or something like that in the commit message. > I think the new approach is better… +1 > Can you create a detailed instruction? > Is it enforceable in git? > > On 15/7/10, 11:08, "Ashutosh Chauhan" <hashut...@apache.org> wrote: > > >There was a problem of attributing contributions correctly back when we > >were using svn, now that we are on git, that problem can be addressed. > >This > >email is an effort to solicit feedback for it. > > > >Problem: In svn, there is only a committer field, so when committer was > >committing someone else's patch there was no way in svn to record original > >contributor. We used to workaround this by putting name of contributor in > >commit message. > > > >Git offers a better solution for this, since it makes a distinction > >between > >committer and author of the patch. However, to do this git needs patch to > >be formatted (with git format-patch) and committed (using git am) in > >certain way. I myself is using following flags to generate and commit > >patches for some time now: > > > >git format-patch --stdout -1 > HIVE-XXXXX.patch > >git am --signoff HIVE-XXXXX.patch > > > >I propose we follow these conventions to generate and commit patches. > >Thoughts? > > > >Ashutosh > > > >PS: Motivation for this came while lurking on linux kernel mailing list, > >where I found Linux devs follow similar process. > >
