[Development] Git commit hook keywords

[Laszlo Papp]

>
> I didn't say we don't need documentation. I said there will always be more
> information than what's documented and reviewers are supposed to teach.
>

Will document it.


> > > As I said, it's the "Task-number" that triggers the completion in the
> > > Gerrit
> > > UI.
> >
> > How will the "Task-number" entry know whether to jump to Gerrit or Jira?
> We
> > need a distinction here because they are separate sources for
> information.
>
> Simple: it always jumps to JIRA, never to Gerrit. Task are always in JIRA.
>

Yes, that is the minor problem with the current construction why I thought
I would mention it.


>  > > But that doesn't explain what QTREVIEW is, why it's misspelt and and
> why
> > > we
> > > don't need the same for other classes.
> >
> > It is not misspelt. I intentionally wrote QT_REVIEW_ according to the
> > QT_BUG_ schema. Like I wrote, it could be a better like QTCODEREVIEW or
> so.
> > I was just presenting the idea.
>
> Well, you could have said that.


I have tried to write that with "Perhaps a QTREVIEW-1 or similar could
resolve the background link automatically as it happens in case of the
QTBUG-X keyword.", but I am sorry if it was not clear enough.


> It's bad name because QTreeView exists and I
> guess lots of people will misread it, like I did. I hadn't realised it was
> "Qt
> Review" until now.
>

There could be a "Review-number:" like entry to be inline with the
"Task-number" variant, albeit I do not mind commit hash or changeid either.


> If you have a concrete suggestion for Gerrit keyword extracting, please
> make
> it. So far, this discussion has led nowhere and I still don't know what you
> want and what you've discovered so far.
>

As I have discovered earlier, the problem is that people keep putting such
entries like this into the commit message:

"https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,XXXXX"<https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,33548>

As you do not use the form "
https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-XXXX" either but "Task-number:
QTBUG-XXXXX <http://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-21035>", the
"Review-number: Foobar" would be more inline. Whether "Foobar" is just a
number or not, I do not mind.

Like I wrote before, I do not know where these words are handled whether in
gerrit upstream, our instance, and so forth. I am just speaking from a
committer point of view. I would personally like to stick with a more
inline solution to the bug number.

Laszlo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20120916/80be27ab/attachment.html>