Re: [PATCH] [RFD] Add repoid identifier to commit

From: Sean <seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
Date: May 12, 2005, 00:45 UTC
Message-ID: <3185.10.10.10.24.1115858739.squirrel@linux1>
In-Reply-To: <1115857838.22180.250.camel@tglx>

On Wed, May 11, 2005 8:30 pm, Thomas Gleixner said:

> On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 19:44 -0400, Sean wrote:
>> What problem are you trying to solve?
>
> The problem to explain the obvious facts to an agnostic

No the problem is you're seeing dragons.

> Aarg. Did you ever get in contact with QA departements ?

Can we please not _invent_ problems where there are none? Can you show a specific case today where repoid would make one ounce of difference in the life of anyone?

> Assume you have:  bugfix - stable - devel repositories.

Why does this imaginary QA department use the same committer and author for all of them? And why is it you switch from imaginary problems of dave, greg and russell to imaginary problems of a fictitious QA department?

Show 9 quoted lines

> You have to track down a problem in bugfix and the source of it.
> It does not matter whether the maintainer of "bugfix" pulled it from
> devel or from stable. It's his fault anyway.
>
> But we are not talking about faults and guiltiness. We want to identify
> the location and the context _where_ and _why_ this change was created.
>
> The current solution of git makes it impossible to retrieve this
> information in a consistent way.

Wrong. When a commit is pulled from a repository, all the surrounding context of every commit that came before it and after it on that branch is pulled right along with it.

> So you have no quick solution to figure out what happened. Quite
> contrary, you have to dissect inconsistent information.
>
> See also the thread about "Stop git-rev-list at sha1 match".

Sorry, this one is entertaining enough <g>

Show 6 quoted lines

>> The chain of command might be good to know in the same way that an
>> accurate signed-off-by chain is good to know.
>
> This sentence makes me guess, that you actually are working in a QA
> departement and therefor trying to maximize the amount of irrelevant
> information.

No, you seem to want it both ways. Sometimes it's important to you to know where an object came from and how it got there, and sometimes it's not. Interesting blind spot.

Sean