# Working towards a common review format for git 5 messages from 2016-01-08 to 2016-01-08. Participants: Richard Ipsum, Dave Borowitz. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/41152 ## Richard Ipsum, 2016-01-08 14:08 Subject: Working towards a common review format for git Message-ID: <20160108140831.GA10200@salo> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20160108140831.GA10200%40salo ``` Hi, In a prior email I mentioned in passing a library I've been working on to try to reach a common format for storing review content in git: perl-notedb.[1] I'm making reasonable progress with this but my work has uncovered necessary (and trivial) modifications to Notedb, the first[2] is a trivial modification to ensure the 'Status' trailer gets written to the commit when a change's status changes. The second[3] is an RFC where I suggest adding a 'Commit' trailer so that it is always possible to reference the commit under review by its sha. With these patches applied to gerrit it's possible for perl-notedb to parse all meta content from notedb and map it to the actual git content under review. However, my concern at present is that I'm already operating under a fork of notedb which defeats the objective of collaborating to produce a standard format, let's try to avoid[4] If the gerrit folks could let me know what I need to do to get these modifications merged, or else what we need to do to achieve equivalent functionality I'd really appreciate it. Thanks again, Richard Ipsum [1]: https://bitbucket.org/richardipsum/perl-notedb [2]: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/73436/ [3]: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/73602/ [4]: https://xkcd.com/927/ ``` ## Dave Borowitz, 2016-01-08 14:24 Subject: Re: Working towards a common review format for git Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAD0k6qRFPMZxLh4MtwkXwrk4GCjf64vWEd%3D9NPn-t_-uVHWz9g%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20160108140831.GA10200@salo> ``` On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Richard Ipsum wrote: > Hi, > > In a prior email I mentioned in passing a library I've been working > on to try to reach a common format for storing review content in git: > perl-notedb.[1] > > I'm making reasonable progress with this but my work has uncovered > necessary (and trivial) modifications to Notedb, the first[2] is a > trivial modification to ensure the 'Status' trailer gets written > to the commit when a change's status changes. I would consider this a bugfix, and will respond on that review. > The second[3] is an RFC > where I suggest adding a 'Commit' trailer so that it is always > possible to reference the commit under review by its sha. I think this is probably fine but I'll have to think about it some more. > With these patches applied to gerrit it's possible for perl-notedb to parse > all meta content from notedb and map it to the actual git content > under review. However, my concern at present is that I'm already > operating under a fork of notedb which defeats the objective of > collaborating to produce a standard format, let's try to avoid[4] I hope I can assuage some of your concerns by saying that since Gerrit notedb is such a work in progress, literally nobody is running it in the wild, so even if the formats diverge temporarily I don't see it as being a long-term issue. But thank you for caring about it, I do appreciate your proactive considerations. > If the gerrit folks could let me know what I need to do to get > these modifications merged, or else what we need to do to achieve > equivalent functionality I'd really appreciate it. > > Thanks again, > Richard Ipsum > > [1]: https://bitbucket.org/richardipsum/perl-notedb > [2]: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/73436/ > [3]: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/73602/ > [4]: https://xkcd.com/927/ ``` ## Dave Borowitz, 2016-01-08 14:53 Subject: Re: Working towards a common review format for git Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAD0k6qQBcfq0%2B%2Bd%3D-uyGpakmd%2BbsxuWYUWcn8auYJPy_HLddTg%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Dave Borowitz wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Richard Ipsum > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> In a prior email I mentioned in passing a library I've been working >> on to try to reach a common format for storing review content in git: >> perl-notedb.[1] >> >> I'm making reasonable progress with this but my work has uncovered >> necessary (and trivial) modifications to Notedb, the first[2] is a >> trivial modification to ensure the 'Status' trailer gets written >> to the commit when a change's status changes. > > I would consider this a bugfix, and will respond on that review. > >> The second[3] is an RFC >> where I suggest adding a 'Commit' trailer so that it is always >> possible to reference the commit under review by its sha. > > I think this is probably fine but I'll have to think about it some more. > >> With these patches applied to gerrit it's possible for perl-notedb to parse >> all meta content from notedb and map it to the actual git content >> under review. However, my concern at present is that I'm already >> operating under a fork of notedb which defeats the objective of >> collaborating to produce a standard format, let's try to avoid[4] > > I hope I can assuage some of your concerns by saying that since Gerrit > notedb is such a work in progress, literally nobody is running it in > the wild, so even if the formats diverge temporarily I don't see it as > being a long-term issue. But thank you for caring about it, I do > appreciate your proactive considerations. You know what would probably also be a good idea would be to spec out the entire format in a standalone document. That way when Gerrit doesn't have something implemented, it's clear that Gerrit is wrong, not that it's trying to fork the format. >> If the gerrit folks could let me know what I need to do to get >> these modifications merged, or else what we need to do to achieve >> equivalent functionality I'd really appreciate it. >> >> Thanks again, >> Richard Ipsum >> >> [1]: https://bitbucket.org/richardipsum/perl-notedb >> [2]: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/73436/ >> [3]: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/73602/ >> [4]: https://xkcd.com/927/ ``` ## Richard Ipsum, 2016-01-08 19:23 Subject: Re: Working towards a common review format for git Message-ID: <20160108192339.GA3514@salo> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20160108192339.GA3514%40salo In-Reply-To: ``` On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 09:53:53AM -0500, Dave Borowitz wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Dave Borowitz wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Richard Ipsum > > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> In a prior email I mentioned in passing a library I've been working > >> on to try to reach a common format for storing review content in git: > >> perl-notedb.[1] > >> > >> I'm making reasonable progress with this but my work has uncovered > >> necessary (and trivial) modifications to Notedb, the first[2] is a > >> trivial modification to ensure the 'Status' trailer gets written > >> to the commit when a change's status changes. > > > > I would consider this a bugfix, and will respond on that review. > > > >> The second[3] is an RFC > >> where I suggest adding a 'Commit' trailer so that it is always > >> possible to reference the commit under review by its sha. > > > > I think this is probably fine but I'll have to think about it some more. > > > >> With these patches applied to gerrit it's possible for perl-notedb to parse > >> all meta content from notedb and map it to the actual git content > >> under review. However, my concern at present is that I'm already > >> operating under a fork of notedb which defeats the objective of > >> collaborating to produce a standard format, let's try to avoid[4] > > > > I hope I can assuage some of your concerns by saying that since Gerrit > > notedb is such a work in progress, literally nobody is running it in > > the wild, so even if the formats diverge temporarily I don't see it as > > being a long-term issue. But thank you for caring about it, I do > > appreciate your proactive considerations. Thanks, that's good to know, thanks also for reviewing the modifications I mentioned. :) > > You know what would probably also be a good idea would be to spec out > the entire format in a standalone document. That way when Gerrit > doesn't have something implemented, it's clear that Gerrit is wrong, > not that it's trying to fork the format. I think that would be good, I could attempt to write a spec for the format and post it here for review? I expect I'll want to work a little more on perl-notedb before I do that though. ``` ## Dave Borowitz, 2016-01-08 19:26 Subject: Re: Working towards a common review format for git Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAD0k6qQLM%3DFh_FGU6JN8%3D52Kjab6AqMfFTaK7DiNYgpWa5nJpg%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20160108192339.GA3514@salo> ``` On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Richard Ipsum wrote: >> You know what would probably also be a good idea would be to spec out >> the entire format in a standalone document. That way when Gerrit >> doesn't have something implemented, it's clear that Gerrit is wrong, >> not that it's trying to fork the format. > > I think that would be good, I could attempt to write a spec for the format > and post it here for review? I expect I'll want to work a little more on > perl-notedb before I do that though. Sure. I don't want to necessarily make more work for you, but it's probably a good exercise to have someone write a spec who did not also write the first implementation :) You may post it here but you would probably get more feedback on repo-discuss@googlegroups.com. ```