{"thread":{"id":"41152","subject":"Working towards a common review format for git","startedAt":"2016-01-08T14:08:31Z","lastAt":"2016-01-08T19:26:26Z","messageCount":5,"participants":["Richard Ipsum","Dave Borowitz"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"275548","messageId":"20160108140831.GA10200@salo","threadId":"41152","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Working towards a common review format for git","fromName":"Richard Ipsum","fromEmail":"richard.ipsum@codethink.co.uk","sentAt":"2016-01-08T14:08:31Z","receivedAt":"2016-01-08T14:08:31Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"richard.ipsum@codethink.co.uk","avatar":null},"body":"Hi,\n\nIn a prior email I mentioned in passing a library I've been working\non to try to reach a common format for storing review content in git:\nperl-notedb.[1]\n\nI'm making reasonable progress with this but my work has uncovered\nnecessary (and trivial) modifications to Notedb, the first[2] is a\ntrivial modification to ensure the 'Status' trailer gets written\nto the commit when a change's status changes. The second[3] is an RFC\nwhere I suggest adding a 'Commit' trailer so that it is always\npossible to reference the commit under review by its sha.\n\nWith these patches applied to gerrit it's possible for perl-notedb to parse\nall meta content from notedb and map it to the actual git content\nunder review. However, my concern at present is that I'm already\noperating under a fork of notedb which defeats the objective of\ncollaborating to produce a standard format, let's try to avoid[4]\n\nIf the gerrit folks could let me know what I need to do to get\nthese modifications merged, or else what we need to do to achieve\nequivalent functionality I'd really appreciate it.\n\nThanks again,\nRichard Ipsum\n\n[1]: https://bitbucket.org/richardipsum/perl-notedb\n[2]: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/73436/\n[3]: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/73602/\n[4]: https://xkcd.com/927/\n"},{"id":"275549","messageId":"CAD0k6qRFPMZxLh4MtwkXwrk4GCjf64vWEd=9NPn-t_-uVHWz9g@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"41152","inReplyTo":"20160108140831.GA10200@salo","subject":"Re: Working towards a common review format for git","fromName":"Dave Borowitz","fromEmail":"dborowitz@google.com","sentAt":"2016-01-08T14:24:43Z","receivedAt":"2016-01-08T14:24:43Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dborowitz@google.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/194927?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Richard Ipsum\n wrote:\n> Hi,\n>\n> In a prior email I mentioned in passing a library I've been working\n> on to try to reach a common format for storing review content in git:\n> perl-notedb.[1]\n>\n> I'm making reasonable progress with this but my work has uncovered\n> necessary (and trivial) modifications to Notedb, the first[2] is a\n> trivial modification to ensure the 'Status' trailer gets written\n> to the commit when a change's status changes.\n\nI would consider this a bugfix, and will respond on that review.\n\n> The second[3] is an RFC\n> where I suggest adding a 'Commit' trailer so that it is always\n> possible to reference the commit under review by its sha.\n\nI think this is probably fine but I'll have to think about it some more.\n\n> With these patches applied to gerrit it's possible for perl-notedb to parse\n> all meta content from notedb and map it to the actual git content\n> under review. However, my concern at present is that I'm already\n> operating under a fork of notedb which defeats the objective of\n> collaborating to produce a standard format, let's try to avoid[4]\n\nI hope I can assuage some of your concerns by saying that since Gerrit\nnotedb is such a work in progress, literally nobody is running it in\nthe wild, so even if the formats diverge temporarily I don't see it as\nbeing a long-term issue. But thank you for caring about it, I do\nappreciate your proactive considerations.\n\n> If the gerrit folks could let me know what I need to do to get\n> these modifications merged, or else what we need to do to achieve\n> equivalent functionality I'd really appreciate it.\n>\n> Thanks again,\n> Richard Ipsum\n>\n> [1]: https://bitbucket.org/richardipsum/perl-notedb\n> [2]: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/73436/\n> [3]: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/73602/\n> [4]: https://xkcd.com/927/\n"},{"id":"275550","messageId":"CAD0k6qQBcfq0++d=-uyGpakmd+bsxuWYUWcn8auYJPy_HLddTg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"41152","inReplyTo":"CAD0k6qRFPMZxLh4MtwkXwrk4GCjf64vWEd=9NPn-t_-uVHWz9g@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Working towards a common review format for git","fromName":"Dave Borowitz","fromEmail":"dborowitz@google.com","sentAt":"2016-01-08T14:53:53Z","receivedAt":"2016-01-08T14:53:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dborowitz@google.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/194927?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Dave Borowitz wrote:\n> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Richard Ipsum\n> wrote:\n>> Hi,\n>>\n>> In a prior email I mentioned in passing a library I've been working\n>> on to try to reach a common format for storing review content in git:\n>> perl-notedb.[1]\n>>\n>> I'm making reasonable progress with this but my work has uncovered\n>> necessary (and trivial) modifications to Notedb, the first[2] is a\n>> trivial modification to ensure the 'Status' trailer gets written\n>> to the commit when a change's status changes.\n>\n> I would consider this a bugfix, and will respond on that review.\n>\n>> The second[3] is an RFC\n>> where I suggest adding a 'Commit' trailer so that it is always\n>> possible to reference the commit under review by its sha.\n>\n> I think this is probably fine but I'll have to think about it some more.\n>\n>> With these patches applied to gerrit it's possible for perl-notedb to parse\n>> all meta content from notedb and map it to the actual git content\n>> under review. However, my concern at present is that I'm already\n>> operating under a fork of notedb which defeats the objective of\n>> collaborating to produce a standard format, let's try to avoid[4]\n>\n> I hope I can assuage some of your concerns by saying that since Gerrit\n> notedb is such a work in progress, literally nobody is running it in\n> the wild, so even if the formats diverge temporarily I don't see it as\n> being a long-term issue. But thank you for caring about it, I do\n> appreciate your proactive considerations.\n\nYou know what would probably also be a good idea would be to spec out\nthe entire format in a standalone document. That way when Gerrit\ndoesn't have something implemented, it's clear that Gerrit is wrong,\nnot that it's trying to fork the format.\n\n>> If the gerrit folks could let me know what I need to do to get\n>> these modifications merged, or else what we need to do to achieve\n>> equivalent functionality I'd really appreciate it.\n>>\n>> Thanks again,\n>> Richard Ipsum\n>>\n>> [1]: https://bitbucket.org/richardipsum/perl-notedb\n>> [2]: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/73436/\n>> [3]: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/73602/\n>> [4]: https://xkcd.com/927/\n"},{"id":"275570","messageId":"20160108192339.GA3514@salo","threadId":"41152","inReplyTo":"CAD0k6qQBcfq0++d=-uyGpakmd+bsxuWYUWcn8auYJPy_HLddTg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Working towards a common review format for git","fromName":"Richard Ipsum","fromEmail":"richard.ipsum@codethink.co.uk","sentAt":"2016-01-08T19:23:39Z","receivedAt":"2016-01-08T19:23:39Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"richard.ipsum@codethink.co.uk","avatar":null},"body":"On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 09:53:53AM -0500, Dave Borowitz wrote:\n> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Dave Borowitz wrote:\n> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Richard Ipsum\n> > wrote:\n> >> Hi,\n> >>\n> >> In a prior email I mentioned in passing a library I've been working\n> >> on to try to reach a common format for storing review content in git:\n> >> perl-notedb.[1]\n> >>\n> >> I'm making reasonable progress with this but my work has uncovered\n> >> necessary (and trivial) modifications to Notedb, the first[2] is a\n> >> trivial modification to ensure the 'Status' trailer gets written\n> >> to the commit when a change's status changes.\n> >\n> > I would consider this a bugfix, and will respond on that review.\n> >\n> >> The second[3] is an RFC\n> >> where I suggest adding a 'Commit' trailer so that it is always\n> >> possible to reference the commit under review by its sha.\n> >\n> > I think this is probably fine but I'll have to think about it some more.\n> >\n> >> With these patches applied to gerrit it's possible for perl-notedb to parse\n> >> all meta content from notedb and map it to the actual git content\n> >> under review. However, my concern at present is that I'm already\n> >> operating under a fork of notedb which defeats the objective of\n> >> collaborating to produce a standard format, let's try to avoid[4]\n> >\n> > I hope I can assuage some of your concerns by saying that since Gerrit\n> > notedb is such a work in progress, literally nobody is running it in\n> > the wild, so even if the formats diverge temporarily I don't see it as\n> > being a long-term issue. But thank you for caring about it, I do\n> > appreciate your proactive considerations.\n\nThanks, that's good to know,\nthanks also for reviewing the modifications I mentioned. :)\n\n> \n> You know what would probably also be a good idea would be to spec out\n> the entire format in a standalone document. That way when Gerrit\n> doesn't have something implemented, it's clear that Gerrit is wrong,\n> not that it's trying to fork the format.\n\nI think that would be good, I could attempt to write a spec for the format\nand post it here for review? I expect I'll want to work a little more on\nperl-notedb before I do that though.\n"},{"id":"275571","messageId":"CAD0k6qQLM=Fh_FGU6JN8=52Kjab6AqMfFTaK7DiNYgpWa5nJpg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"41152","inReplyTo":"20160108192339.GA3514@salo","subject":"Re: Working towards a common review format for git","fromName":"Dave Borowitz","fromEmail":"dborowitz@google.com","sentAt":"2016-01-08T19:26:26Z","receivedAt":"2016-01-08T19:26:26Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dborowitz@google.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/194927?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Richard Ipsum\n wrote:\n>> You know what would probably also be a good idea would be to spec out\n>> the entire format in a standalone document. That way when Gerrit\n>> doesn't have something implemented, it's clear that Gerrit is wrong,\n>> not that it's trying to fork the format.\n>\n> I think that would be good, I could attempt to write a spec for the format\n> and post it here for review? I expect I'll want to work a little more on\n> perl-notedb before I do that though.\n\nSure. I don't want to necessarily make more work for you, but it's\nprobably a good exercise to have someone write a spec who did not also\nwrite the first implementation :)\n\nYou may post it here but you would probably get more feedback on\nrepo-discuss@googlegroups.com.\n"}]}