Hi David,
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:15:22AM -0400, David Davis wrote:
> I want to announce that commit messages will be validated for PRs
> against pulpâs master branch per [0]. This validation will check two
> things.
> First, the validation script checks that thereâs an attached issue in
> the commit message. This is to prevent commits not being properly
> associated with the issue they've fixed. If you absolutely must commit
> code without an issue, add â#noissueâ to the commit message.
I must admit that I am still confused which changes need an issue and
what the link is good for during the build process. Perhaps a more
complex example could help: We had a "mixed bag" PR for Crane a
couple of weeks ago [0] which consisted of the following commits
(after improving it and splitting it up into 4 commits).
4. Implement option to serve local content:
The core implementation of the feature
3. Add "repository" to stored repo data from redirect files
Preparation for the actual feature.
2. Fix app_util.validate_and_transform_repo_name()
Fix for a function to improve handling of edge cases.
1. Fix logger name for v2 views
One line "drive by fix" to fix logging in a module.
Let's assume 1. and 2. are commits one would consider to pick for a
stable patch release (AFAIK this is currently not happening for Crane, but
let's pretend). 3. and 4. belong to the implementation of a new
feature (with 4. being the "meat"). The fixes were not planned
before, they just made sense to do during implementation/review.
In this PR, only 4. had an annotation linking it to the story ("closes #3857").
What would be the proper way to handle this PR with respect to issues
and annotations in your opinion?
[0] https://github.com/pulp/crane/pull/93/commits
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
