[PATCH 1/1] UBUNTU: SAUCE: Adopt the use of "BugLink:" lines in git commit messages.

[Amit Kucheria]

On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 01:13:06PM -0500, Steve Conklin wrote:

> >> Here's a further request for comment -
> >>
> >> I'm in the process of cleaning up the patches that we are carrying in
> >> the hardy netbook-lpia branch. These get reapplied to the hardy
> >> distro when we periodically rebase them. I'm already removing
> >> whitespace errors in these so that they apply cleanly each time.
> >> Tim suggested that I also add whitespace to the commit text on these
> >> where needed to prevent junk like "OriginalAuthor" from being
> >> appended to the Subject lines by git.
> >>
> >> My intent was to add a hook in the rebasing script optionally
> >> run a script against all the patches to be rebased, before
> >> they are applied. This will allow me to fix the problems
> >> above, but would also allow me to to make the BugLink changes
> >> desribed above to all the patches we are carrying during the
> >> rebase. This should also apply easily to other possible uses.

Couldn't you just replace the rebase command in the script with a call to an interactive rebase? That will allow you to edit your commits if you want.

> >> Any scripts run against the tree as part of a rebase should be
> >> added and committed, with a commit text describing that they
> >> were run as part of a certain rebase. I don't think it's good
> >> to automatically call the same script for every rebase, as these
> >> are designed to make one-time sets of changes. Committing them
> >> will preserve the history of what was done.

What kind of changes do you make repeatedly on a rebase? I thought the whitespace cleanup is a one-off thing.

> >> What does the team think of this approach in general, and
> >> specifically about being used to add the BugLink lines?
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >>
> > The approach itself might be helpful. I am just not sure how important
> > the BugLink is for patches in any Hardy as we won't push upstream from
> > there, or do we?
> > 
> > Stefan
> > 
> > 
> 
> One of the things I plan to do as soon as I can is to review all
> the netbook-lpia patches to see which need to go upstream or to
> stable, or into our own distros as sauce patches. I suspect that
> there aren't too many, and that most of those will be quirks
> for various I/O devices.

But quirks by themselves should be going upstream lest we causes regressions in future releases when the semantics of a quirk change.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amit Kucheria, Kernel Engineer || amit at canonical.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------