[apparmor] [administrivia] git conversion complete; gitlab projects set up

[Tyler Hicks]

On 11/02/2017 04:08 PM, John Johansen wrote:
> On 11/02/2017 01:03 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
>> On 11/02/2017 03:00 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>>> ]
>>>> We walked through a merge yesterday with this merge request:
>>>>
>>>>   https://gitlab.com/apparmor/apparmor/merge_requests/1
>>>>
>>>> The audit trail of who merged the code is implicitly present in the
>>>> merge commit. By default, there's no information about who reviewed the
>>>> changes but the merge commit contains a mention of where to find the
>>>> merge request and that page will contain much more info about who
>>>> reviewed which parts of the merge request.
>>>>
>>> That makes the dangerous assumption we keep our infrastructure on gitlab,
>>> and don't endup migrating again (this is the 4 or 5 migration in the
>>> projects history). I would strongly prefer having that information
>>> integral to the commit message.
>>>
>>>> I'm fine with the default merge commit message. I think Steve had an
>>>> issue with the subject line of the default merge commit message. I'll
>>>> let him voice his opposition to it and maybe he'll have a better suggestion.
>>>> I am really not happy with with what I have seen so far.
>>>
>>>     Merge branch 'make-variable' into 'master'
>>>     
>>>     all: Use the MAKE variable
>>>     
>>>     See merge request apparmor/apparmor!1
>>>
>>>
>>> uhmm, no that really fails the migration test
>>
>> Please provide a suggested commit message format that we can all follow.
>>
> I don't have one, I am really not too bothered with the format. I don't
> even care if people are consistent with it.
> 
> What is missing is a couple critical pieces of information. Who was
> involved in the merge discussion doing both the reviewing and acking.
> Partly as breadcrumbs in the future partly because I want a more
> permanent form of acknowledgement of the contribution, which is
> both critical and all too easily overlooked.
> 
> I don't even care if it shows up on every patch in the merge or just
> the merge message. I just want the info available in the logs,
> instead of in the meta info stored in the cloud that may one day
> disappear.

Does anyone else have strong feelings about this and care to suggest a
format/process? We're seemingly blocked on accepting merge requests
otherwise.

Tyler

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/apparmor/attachments/20171102/820b3946/attachment-0001.sig>