[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [egit-dev] Cherry-pick & Gerrit Change-ID

2011/12/21 Markus Duft <markus.duft@xxxxxxxxxx>


On 12/21/2011 12:46 PM, Matthias Sohn wrote:
> 2011/12/21 Markus Duft <markus.duft@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:markus.duft@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>
>
>
> Â Â On 12/21/2011 09:46 AM, Matthias Sohn wrote:
> Â Â > 2011/12/21 Markus Duft <markus.duft@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:markus.duft@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:markus.duft@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:markus.duft@xxxxxxxxxx>>>
> Â Â >
> Â Â > Â Â Hey!
> Â Â >
> Â Â > Â Â How should the gerrit change-id generation in egit behave when cherry-picking a commit to another branch? I observed:
> Â Â >
> Â Â > Â Â Â* when there is no conflict, the same id is used
> Â Â > Â Â Â* when there is a conflict and i have to use the commit dialog, a new id is generated
> Â Â >
> Â Â > Â Â is this intention? or should i report a bug?
> Â Â >
> Â Â >
> Â Â > this looks inconsistent and is probably caused by the fact that
> Â Â > change-id generation is a feature of the commit dialog which isn't
> Â Â > used when cherry-pick succeeds without conflicts.
>
> Â Â mhm, i thought so ...
>
> Â Â >
> Â Â > Though I am not sure what's the correct behavior as AFAIK Gerrit behavior
> Â Â > changed from 2.1.x to 2.2. I think Gerrit 2.1.x rejects pushing changes with
> Â Â > the same change-id to multiple branches whereas Gerrit 2.2 now
> Â Â > can handle that.
>
> Â Â the problem also arises when the gerrit target branch stays all the same, but the change is cherry picked locally onto a different feature branch (for example to break the dependency on another commit, that i don't want to have in my branch)
>
>
> maybe we can associate a local branch with the branch on the Gerrit server it's aiming at
> extending the ideas discussed in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=309578

maybe, but i don't have strong feeling in either direction here, as i don't see a direct relation. when the commit dialog is invoked after a merge or cherry-pick, it does get a message pre-filled. why not act like when amending, and keep the change id that was in the original commit anyway? i see no reason why it is thrown away and re-created.

yes, this is for sure better than the current behaviorÂ

--
Matthias