On 2025-08-06, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > 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?
No. git tags. For examples: git tag --sign team-reproduciblebuilds-12345 git tag --sign core-packages-567890 > 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. Tags are independent of the git commit message entirely, and can even be done after the fact when you know for sure it actually landed in the master branch at a specific commit. > 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 While that does sound nice, it would only be exposed via Forgejo/codeberg interfaces, and ... does not yet exist. > 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. I have too many other projects on the backest of back burners... I simply wanted to propose something small using existing features that would help with tracking when merges happen. I do acknowledge that it *is* an extra step...but one that would make merges really simple to track in "git log" and other views of history without needing any special functionality in forgejo or other tooling. Either that or revisit a safer way to actually use "git merge" which would just make it obvious in the merge commit, although we stopped using "git merge" in that way for reasons: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-01/msg00306.html Seeing big merges land, and wondering "what is the merge and what is just the usual churn on master" is pretty much a perpetual question for me... live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
