8:35 a.m.
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--btdKXJCU5DOrmGrkEUmwTKnIjl4rtQR5Q
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="9tPRhpbiexEshuhgQXhwT4OgJJ6UDi7nS"
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyYyBEZXF1w6huZXMgKER1Y2sp?= <duck(a)redhat.com>
To: Barak Korren <bkorren(a)redhat.com>
Cc: infra <infra(a)ovirt.org>
Message-ID: <2b6c9b48-59dc-444e-18a8-cfec21c41666(a)redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [JIRA] (OVIRT-696) create an 'infra-ansible' repo
References: <JIRA.18604.1471435113000(a)Atlassian.JIRA>
<JIRA.18604.1471435113707(a)ovirt-jira.atlassian.net>
<JIRA.18604.1471435113000.26.1471435200131(a)Atlassian.JIRA>
<1cdb68d9-ad05-a192-0f7a-5a418e37bfca(a)redhat.com>
<b39c9ab0-91f2-6726-eece-543a26efec26(a)redhat.com>
<CAGJrMmqCA=ok+GC8Z0h79PmDoUWBH0xpW5fOLay2xe2=TndFsw(a)mail.gmail.com>
<798d9530-ad0d-797f-8a36-7c2a1b5a86d5(a)redhat.com>
<d0068dde-3d37-f85e-f9b9-fddfbfeeaca8(a)redhat.com>
<CAGJrMmpbbOs+bpsi1kSztesMqOgXHGMNbp6emaWNZ2tn81DizA(a)mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGJrMmpbbOs+bpsi1kSztesMqOgXHGMNbp6emaWNZ2tn81DizA(a)mail.gmail.com>
--9tPRhpbiexEshuhgQXhwT4OgJJ6UDi7nS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 09/06/2016 10:10 PM, Barak Korren wrote:
I find that typically work history can be lease then ideal for
presenting work to other developers. For me I typically find that I
can narrow down commits by a factor of 3-5 when going from actual work
history to a commit series that describes gradual accumulation of
major features.
In ideal way I would have done topic branches from the start. Already
moving out the Vagrant work was a pain in the ass, so it would mean
hours or rebasing to aggregate fixes, which I'm clearly not willing to do=
=2E
So I agree on presenting the history, except in this case (without
gerrit) all the discussions about why something was setup one way and
then changed is not in reviews and associated comments. So if I squash
commits, messages explaining the reasons are lost.
Please not that I did not mean that you should squash all commits to
a
single big one, just narrow them down and reorder to make it easier
for us to understand your major themes and ideas.
That would probably be nice, but I'm not gonna redo all my work again,
with things months behind I do not recall perfectly.
So unless a decent proposition is done, well, we're stuck.
With the current limitations of Gerrit (acknowledging your other reply)
I see only two possibilities, none of them satisfying:
- reviewing (well, accepting in fact) all the commits one by one. this
is boring but history is preserved
- cleaning all reviews I sent by mistake, and have just 2 commits:
base layout with MM3 full, and Vagrant work
I would have preferred my work being used as it is as the base
repository of gerrit, or even better that this gerrit repository was
created from the start (but with noone to really be able to review
except myself). Now this is the hard way.
--9tPRhpbiexEshuhgQXhwT4OgJJ6UDi7nS--
--btdKXJCU5DOrmGrkEUmwTKnIjl4rtQR5Q
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=OHvw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--btdKXJCU5DOrmGrkEUmwTKnIjl4rtQR5Q--