Despite all the time it takes to add the tags and force-push, I have no objection to doing that. It captures per-commit reviews well.
Marek On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 1:17 PM Eero Tamminen <eero.t.tammi...@intel.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 7.10.2021 19.51, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 09:38, Eero Tamminen <eero.t.tammi...@intel.com> > wrote: > >> This sounds horrible from the point of view of trying to track down > >> somebody who knows about what's & why's of some old commit that is later > >> on found to cause issues... > > > > But why would your first point of call not be to go back to the review > > discussion and look at the context and what was said at the time? Then > > when you do that, you can see not only what happened, but also who was > > involved and saying what at the time. > > You're assuming that: > - The review discussion is still available [1] > - One can find it based on given individual commit > > [1] system hosting it could be down, or network could be down. > > It's maybe a bit contrived situation, but I kind of prefer > self-contained information. What, why and who is better to be in commit > itself than only in MR. > > > - Eero >
