Re: [PATCH v2] git-p4: add P4 jobs to git commit message

2 messages, 2 authors, 2016-06-16 · open the first message on its own page

Re: [PATCH v2] git-p4: add P4 jobs to git commit message

From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-16 02:18:52

Luke Diamand [off-list ref] writes:
One thing I wondered about is whether this should be enabled by
default or not. Long-time users of git-p4 might be a bit surprised to
find their git commits suddenly gaining an extra Job: field.
Ahh, I didn't even wonder about but that is not because I didn't
think it matters.

Does this change affect reproducibility of importing the history
from P4, doesn't it?  Would that be a problem?

How common is it to have the "extra" Job: thing in the history on P4
side?  If the answer to this question is "on rare occasions and only
when there is a very good reason to have 'jobs' associated with the
changelist", then the 'might be a bit surprised' brought by this
change can probably be explained away as "a fix to a (design) bug
that used to discard crucial information" that (unfortunately) have
to change the resulting Git object names.

Re: [PATCH v2] git-p4: add P4 jobs to git commit message

From: Luke Diamand <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-16 02:18:53

On 20 April 2016 at 16:51, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Luke Diamand [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
One thing I wondered about is whether this should be enabled by
default or not. Long-time users of git-p4 might be a bit surprised to
find their git commits suddenly gaining an extra Job: field.
Ahh, I didn't even wonder about but that is not because I didn't
think it matters.

Does this change affect reproducibility of importing the history
from P4, doesn't it?  Would that be a problem?
It would change the history created, but I don't see why that would be
a problem.
How common is it to have the "extra" Job: thing in the history on P4
side?
Where I work currently we don't use jobs (at present). Where I worked
before, jobs were created automatically to track issues in JIRA, and
were (supposed to be) entered into commits. It's potentially quite
useful so I guess might be quite widespread.
If the answer to this question is "on rare occasions and only
when there is a very good reason to have 'jobs' associated with the
changelist", then the 'might be a bit surprised' brought by this
change can probably be explained away as "a fix to a (design) bug
that used to discard crucial information" that (unfortunately) have
to change the resulting Git object names.
Luke
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help