Format for JDK 6/7 changeset comments?

[Yuri Nesterenko]

Should there be a convention for the name of author?
A person should be easily found by the name.

I'm asking that because the name will be written in developer's
.hgrc file and [another name or nick]  used for push. 
No sense for me to put there 'yuri' as in my OpenJDK public keys collection:
it's too common a name in our part of the world.

E-mail? Will it be obfuscated? At least a gatekeeper should be able to
quickly find the submitter without research.

Thanks,
-Yuri

On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 10:16:54PM -0800, iris.clark at sun.com wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> As you know, the experimental OpenJDK repositories for JDK 7 are
> available [1].  In anticipation of getting the repositories live, we
> need to decide what our convention for changeset comments should be.
> The required format of the comments will be enforced whenever the
> changeset is pushed into the JDK 6/7 master or group repository
> forests.  Other Projects may copy these conventions, adopt some other
> conventions, or have no conventions, depending upon their goals.
> 
> In the old system, depending on the group integration tree, several
> formats were in use.  Here's the common information:
> 
>   - name of the person making the change
>   - bugid (a 7-digit number allocated by the Sun bug database)
>   - complete synopsis of the bug
>   - comma-separated list of reviewers of the change (typically
>     either username or e-mail address)
> 
> Optional information which appears in some trees includes:
> 
>   - information about existenace or feasibility of regression/unit
>     tests 
>   - pointer to associated webrev
>   - list of approvals
>   - contributor acknowledgements
> 
> Though we expect most changesets to contain updates for a single bug,
> our convention should easily accommodate changesets involving multiple
> bugs.  Based on informal discussions, here's a potential format:
> 
>   The number of lines in the changeset is equal to the number of bugs.
>   For each bug, there is a line of the following form:
> 
>     <id>: <synopsis> [<reviewer>*]
> 
>   where 
> 
>     <id>        - a 7-digit bugid allocated by the Sun bug database
>     <synposis>  - the complete synposis for the bugid
>     <reviewer>* - a comma separated list of reviewers of the change
>                   (repository userid)
> 
>   The name of the person submitting the change is the user who created
>   the changeset. 
> 
>   For example:
> 
>      4853841: Nervous text demo displays wrong version [iris, duke]
> 
> This covers the common information but is that sufficient?  I think
> that the optional information regarding testing, webrev, and approvals
> should be contained in the bug, but what about contributor
> acknowledgements?  Perhaps something along these lines is more
> suitable:
> 
>   For each bug there is a block of the following form:
> 
>     <id>: <synopsis>
>     Review: <reviewer>*
>     Credit: <acknowledgement>*
> 
>   where 
> 
>      <id>, <synopsis>, <reviewers> 
>                 - described above
>      <acknowledgement> 
>                 - arbitrary string of contributor acknowledgments
> 
>   The first two lines are required.  The third is optional.  The name
>   of the person submitting the change is user who created the
>   changeset.
> 
>   For example:
> 
>     4853841: Nervous text demo displays wrong version
>     Review: iris, duke
>     Credit: mr - for extending the demo to accept arguments 
> 
> I favor the compactness of the first format; but the second is more
> extensible and gives us a simple means to recognise key contributions
> besides simple authorship or review.
> 
> What do you think?  
> 
> Thanks,
> iris
> 
> [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net