Re: Gerrit, GitButler, and Jujutsu projects collaborating on change-id commit footer
- From
- Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
- Date
- Apr 4, 2025, 16:08 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Z/AD4CsUZTPQyKeT@ubby>
- In-Reply-To
- <D8XOO0H2GSK0.JQSNCLB1QUQR@buenzli.dev>
On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 09:41:24AM +0200, Remo Senekowitsch wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> I'll try to join some of our threads and summarize... please correct me > if you disagree with that summary (or I've left something out you think > is important). > > [...]
+1.
Show 11 quoted lines
> When discussing the uniqueness of change-ids or lack thereof, I'd > like to introduce one more factor: At which point in time during the > development cycle a change-id is unique. Jujutsu users derive most > of the benefits of change-ids during active development. The use case > you find most important - tracking (forward- and) back-ports - happens > at a different time during development, when a change has been merged > to a public branch already. So I think there is no conflict at all. > Change-ids will naturally tend to be unique during active development > and once they are merged, whether the change-id stays unique or not > doesn't matter anymore for those active development use cases. We can > have our cake and eat it too.
I think that's right. One more benefit of change IDs is that you can find a commit in a back-/forward-port and track it all the way to its very initial integration and its code review history, perhaps all the way to its very first version.