Hi, Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> writes:
> Wondering if we could make a habit of (signed) tags when merging > branches? > > Because the norm is to rebase all the commits on top of master (as > opposed to just merging the branch), it requires some guesswork and > cognitive load to figure out where a exactly a branch was merged. > > With (signed) tags, this would be easy to see in "git log" and > presumably other ways of viewing the git history. > > Presuming that such merges are tracked in a pull request, I could see > tags something along the lines of: > > BRANCH-PULLREQUESTNUMBER > > or: > > TEAM-PULLREQUESTNUMBER Do you mean git trailers rather than git tags? In any case, I'd rather not have to do that. We're trying to simplify things, and any manual annotation to be added to the git commit message is a small but added annoyance. I think this should be fixed in Forgejo instead, for example by implementing this feature request [0], which would make tracing the PR of a merged commit easy, at least when using the Codeberg UI (or a tool that can query its API). [0] https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/4247 By the way, there's a Guix manifest in the Forgejo repo that makes experimenting with a local (possibly modified) instance easy, in case you'd like to hack on it. -- Thanks, Maxim
