In a branch of a private discussion, some issues with how backports are committed was raised.
IMO, our use of STATUS kind of makes the current Reviewed By: a little misleading in http://people.apache.org/~jorton/svn.merge * My older copy of the script doesn't have it at all, and I rarely edit the "clog" it generates -- meaning I almost never capture the original reviewers in the commit log. * Jim had modified his copy, presumably related to the same confusion vs. what we call the reviewers in STATUS, but it introduced a different misleading overlap when the work to port a fix was noteworthy. Do we want to call the list of reviewers from STATUS mandatory in the commit to the stable branches? I am personally -0 on _requiring_ it as STATUS and backporting can already be a bit tedious, and ultimately most reviews seem to be desk-checks. I wouldn't mind if svn.merge required more input and stopped me from breaking a rule though. -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
