indicating a necessary revision

This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.

A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.

Neels Hofmeyr nhofmeyr at sysmocom.de
Mon Dec 19 12:33:20 UTC 2016


When committing a change that needs a specific change from another project, but
that other change is still in the gerrit queue and has no final git commit hash
yet, it is handy to use the Change-Id to reference the given decision.

Harald recently requested that I always include the Change-Id in the commit
log.

Now Max says:
> It's better to update commit log with git commit hash instead of change-id
> before final submission.

Can we get consensus? Should we modify the commit log from Change-Id to git
hash once the required other commit is through?

The Change-Id is always there and can be searched for in the git log; and
should we ever decide to rehash the git history or move to another version
control software (losing all git hashes), the Change-Id would still be there.

But the git hash, once it is finalized, can be used directly on the git
commandline.

I wouldn't have done the extra effort, but if all agree that the git hash is
better, I'll change it (and hopefully remember to do it, too).

~N
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/openbsc/attachments/20161219/4ceac67f/attachment.bin>


More information about the OpenBSC mailing list