Re: [egit-dev] Gerrit Commits

["Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> m?ndagen den 28 december 2009 00.30.26 skrev  Shawn O. Pearce:
> > The problem with that style is, some people at my $DAY_JOB disagreetur
> > and say these commits are false, they didn't make them, they just
> > pushed the submit button, the software made the commit on their
> > behalf.
> 
> It's like saying, "git merged", not me and blame Linus for everything.

I know.  Not everyone agrees with us.
 
> > Although with both an author and a committer line available in the
> > header we could assign the submitter as the author line, and the
> > generic user identity as the committer line, to make it clear that
> > this commit was made by Gerrit on behalf of the user who clicked
> > the submit button, vs. being a commit the user made on their desktop
> > and uploaded.
> 
> This solution gets my vote.

OK, I'll try to get that code changed this week.

> A slightly disturbing aspect of these automatic merges is that they
> are not tested. How do we fix those? IMHO broken merges shoul be
> fixed as an "evil" merge, shouldn't they?

Yes, they should be fixed as an evil merge, but you don't have the
chance to do it when Gerrit submits the merge for you, since the
merge wasn't able to be tested before it became part of the branch.

The best way to avoid this is to test each merge and configure Gerrit
to be in fast-forward only mode, so merges have to be done by hand
locally and uploaded to submit.  But this is also very annoying to
do, as more often than not the merges are going to be correct.

-- 
Shawn.