Hi, Assuming this is agreed (is it?) - here's the dilemma: - Tagging the subject is problematic due to length limit and fails the pep8 gate - Tagging in the message looses the visibility value
Can we check for the subject length without the tags, or disable this check completely? Yair ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yair Fried" <yfr...@redhat.com> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 11:20:40 AM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Tempest][qa] Adding tags to commit messages ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Masayuki Igawa" <masayuki.ig...@gmail.com> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 10:42:39 AM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Tempest][qa] Adding tags to commit messages > > Hi, > > On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Yair Fried <yfr...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > Suggestion: Please consider tagging your Tempest commit messages > > the same way you do your mails in the mailing list > > > > Explanation: Since tempest is a single project testing multiple > > Openstack project we have a very diverse collection of patches as > > well as reviewers. Tagging our commit messages will allow us to > > classify patches and thus: > > 1. Allow reviewer to focus on patches related to their area of > > expertise > > 2. Track "trends" in patches - I think we all know that we lack in > > Neutron testing for example, but can we assess how many network > > related patches are for awaiting review > > 3. Future automation of flagging "interesting" patches > > > > You can usually tell all of this from reviewing the patch, but by > > then - you've spent time on a patch you might not even be > > qualified to review. > > I suggest we tag our patches with, to start with, the components we > > are looking to test, and the type of test (sceanrio, api, ...) and > > that reviewers should -1 untagged patches. > > > > I think the tagging should be the 2nd line in the message: > > > > ====================================== > > Example commit message > > > > [Neutron][Nova][Network][Scenario] > > > > Explanation of how this scenario tests both Neutron and Nova > > Network performance > > > > Chang-id XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > > ======================================= > > > > I would like this to start immediately but what do you guys think? > > +1 > > And, how about do we the tagging about the services in the > subject(1st line)? > For example: > Neutron:Example commit subject > > Because the dashboard of the gerrit shows the subject only now. > I think reviewers can find "interesting" patches easily if the > dashboard shows the tags. I just found out you could query search for messages like this: status:open message:[Neutron] > This is not so strong opinion because some scenario tests may have > several services tags. And you have a limited subject length that's already not enough (for me at least) > > -- > Masayuki Igawa > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
