Code review required for commits - Discuss.

Michael Adam obnox at
Fri Oct 12 00:40:59 MDT 2012

On 2012-10-11 at 13:43 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 01:33:43PM -0700, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> > >Release branches work as they do today, though the + should be treated
> > >as a sign-off in bugzilla.
> > Why-not but should it be automatic ?
> I don't think we need any change to what we're currently
> doing in release branches - this is just writing up what
> we already have. The reason it can't be automatic I think
> is that a patch gets posted to bugzilla, other people +1
> it then Karolin commits. For a + to add a signoff people
> would have to re-upload the patch with their signoff added,
> and I don't think we need that extra step.

What is more, the patch may still carry sign-off tags
from the measter version which has been ported.

I agree that we don't need to change the release-branch process.

> > >All bug commits should now contain their
> > >bug number in them, so we can track back what happened.
> > Agreed.
> We've mostly been doing that anyway.

But for master, this might become different, we frequently have
a patch in master before we create the corresponding bug report
for a release... Are you usuggesting that we should change that
to require creating but reports and changing commit messages
for the master branch as part of the review process before pushing?

To my opinion, it would be important to require the bug number in
subject requirement for the stable release branches, and have it
as a best effort thing for master just as we do now.

Cheers - Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list