In article <CAKmKYaB6DcW=CMtbXWxHFLVfwZSQQHCFd8OS0v2TPc=pwfXB-Q@mail.gmail.com>, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@ochtman.nl> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 20:41, Petri Lehtinen <petri@digip.org> wrote:
Generally speaking, it's more useful for the checkin metadata to reflect who actually did the checkin, since that's the most useful information for the tracker and buildbot integration. At least in git, the commit metadata contains both author and committer (at least if they differ). Maybe mercurial has this too? It does not.
Personally, I find it more appropriate to have the original patch author in the "official" metadata, mostly because I personally find it very satisfying to see my name in the changelog on hgweb and the like. My own experience with that makes me think that it's probably helpful in engaging contributors.
As Nick pointed out, it's important that who did the checkin is recorded for python-dev workflow reasons. Ensuring that the original patch submitter is mentioned in the commit message and, as appropriate, in any Misc/NEWS item seems to me an appropriate and sufficient way to give that recognition. The NEWS file will eventually get installed on countless systems around the world: hard to beat that! WRT the original commit message, a more flexible approach to applying patches is to use "hg qimport" rather than "hg import". It is then possible to edit the patch, make the necessary changes to Misc/NEWS, edit the original patch commit comment using "hg qrefresh -e" and then commit the patch with "hg qfinish". -- Ned Deily, nad@acm.org