I wrote a quick & crappy script that automates going from commit -> PR:
#!/bin/sh
if [ $# -eq 0 ]; then
echo 'Usage: which-pr COMMIT'
exit 0
fi
git log master ^$1 --ancestry-path --oneline --merges | \
tail -1 | \
sed 's@.*#\([0-9]*\) : .*@http://github.com/mozilla/rust/pull/\1@'
Putting this in your path gives:
$ which-pr 6555b04
http://github.com/mozilla/rust/pull/12345
$ which-pr a02b10a0621adfe36eb3cc2e46f45fc7ccdb7ea2
http://github.com/mozilla/rust/pull/12162
Of course, I'm sure there are corner cases that don't work, and it's
definitely not as usable as something directly encoded in the commit.
Huon
On 18/02/14 13:17, Nick Cameron wrote:
Right, that is exactly what I want to see, just on every commit. For
example,
https://github.com/mozilla/rust/commit/a02b10a0621adfe36eb3cc2e46f45fc7ccdb7ea2.
has none of that info and I can't see any way to get it (without the
kind of Git-fu suggested earlier). (Well, I can actually see that
r=nikomatsakis from the comments at the bottom, but I can't see how
that r+ came about, whether there was any discussion, whether there
was an issue where this was discussed or not, etc.).
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Corey Richardson <co...@octayn.net
<mailto:co...@octayn.net>> wrote:
https://github.com/mozilla/rust/commit/25147b2644ed569f16f22dc02d10a0a9b7b97c7e
seems to provide all of the information you are asking for? It
includes the text of the PR description, the PR number, the name of
the branch, and who reviewed it. I agree with your premise but I'm not
sure I agree that the current situation isn't adequate. But I wouldn't
be opposed to such a change.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Nick Cameron <li...@ncameron.org
<mailto:li...@ncameron.org>> wrote:
> Whether we need issues for PRs is a separate discussion. There
has to be
> _something_ for every commit - either a PR or an issue, at the
least there
> needs to be an r+ somewhere. I would like to see who reviewed
something so I
> can ping someone with questions other than the author (if they
are offline).
> Any discussion is likely to be useful.
>
> So the question is how to find that, when necessary. GitHub
sometimes fails
> to point to the info. And when it does, you do not know if you
are missing
> more info. For the price of 6 characters in the commit message
(or "no
> issue"), we know with certainty where to find that info and that
we are not
> missing other potentially useful info. This would not slow down
development
> in any way.
>
> Note that this is orthogonal to use of version control - you
still need to
> know Git in order to get the commit message - it is about how
one can go
> easily from a commit message to meta-data about a commit.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Kevin Ballard <ke...@sb.org
<mailto:ke...@sb.org>> wrote:
>>
>> This is not going to work in the slightest.
>>
>> Most PRs don't have an associated issue. The pull request is
the issue.
>> And that's perfectly fine. There's no need to file an issue
separate from
>> the PR itself. Requiring a referenced issue for every single
commit would be
>> extremely cumbersome, serve no real purpose aside from aiding an
>> unwillingness to learn how source control works, and would
probably slow
>> down the rate of development of Rust.
>>
>> -Kevin
>>
>> On Feb 17, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Nick Cameron <li...@ncameron.org
<mailto:li...@ncameron.org>> wrote:
>>
>> At worst you could just use the issue number for the PR. But I
think all
>> non-trivial commits _should_ have an issue associated. For
really tiny
>> commits we could allow "no issue" or '#0' in the message. Just
so long as
>> the author is being explicit, I think that is OK.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Scott Lawrence
<byt...@gmail.com <mailto:byt...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding? This would require that all commits be
>>> specifically associated with an issue. I don't have actual
stats, but
>>> briefly skimming recent commits and looking at the issue
tracker, a lot of
>>> commits can't be reasonably associated with an issue. This
requirement would
>>> either force people to create fake issues for each commit, or
to reference
>>> tangentially-related or overly-broad issues in commit
messages, neither of
>>> which is very useful.
>>>
>>> Referencing any conversation that leads to or influences a
commit is a
>>> good idea, but something this inflexible doesn't seem right.
>>>
>>> My 1.5ยข.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Nick Cameron wrote:
>>>
>>>> How would people feel about a requirement for all commit
messages to
>>>> have
>>>> an issue number in them? And could we make bors enforce that?
>>>>
>>>> The reason is that GitHub is very bad at being able to trace
back a
>>>> commit
>>>> to the issue it fixes (sometimes it manages, but not always).
Not being
>>>> able to find the discussion around a commit is extremely
annoying.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Nick
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Scott Lawrence
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rust-dev mailing list
>> Rust-dev@mozilla.org <mailto:Rust-dev@mozilla.org>
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rust-dev mailing list
> Rust-dev@mozilla.org <mailto:Rust-dev@mozilla.org>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
