[Development] Suggestion to add labels when changing API

Konstantin Tokarev annulen at yandex.ru
Fri Dec 8 17:10:41 CET 2017

08.12.2017, 18:50, "Oswald Buddenhagen" <oswald.buddenhagen at qt.io>:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 04:15:10PM +0100, Sergio Ahumada wrote:
>>  On 08.12.2017 15:42, Adam Treat wrote:
>>  > Relying upon qt5 submodule pins is the problem. The underlying issue is
>>  > atomicity of commits. Oswald is right.
>>  >
>>  > We need to have a way to provide atomic commits across modules at least
>>  > the CI should see these as atomic and integrate accordingly.
>>  >
>>  what about trying to enable gerrit topic's feature again for cross-repo
>>  changes?
> from the ci perspective, that's both pointless (because the grouping can
> be achieved temporally by just staging the changes at the same time) and
> insufficient (because the system currently just won't do atomic
> integrations).
> if you want to use the topic name as the label that has been originally
> proposed, regardless of the CI system, then there is nothing to fix:
> the ability to set the topic has been available forever (it just does
> not have any magic effect on integration).
> the problem with such "soft-labeling" is of course that it's laborious
> and terribly easy to mess up.
> fwiw, openstack's zuul recognizes explicit dependency markers in commit
> message footers, which is kind of a middle ground (it's formalized, so
> it can be checked). 

If git hashes were used instead of Change-Id's, it would be useful to store
this information in git commits (in case of future need for bisecting)

i'm not a particular fan of their gerrit<=>ci
> integration approach to start with, though.
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development


More information about the Development mailing list