[Insight-developers] Just when I thought I understood gerrit

[Bill Lorensen]

If the ultimate is through gerrit, then gerrit-merge is the right
choice. Maybe eliminate the stage-push and stage-merge. Not that many
of us are using them yet.

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Marcus D. Hanwell
<marcus.hanwell at kitware.com> wrote:
> Ultimately, the stage should be replaced by equivalent features in
> Gerrit. For this reason gerrit-merge is quite appropriate, especially
> as most developers should be staging and merging changes approved in
> Gerrit. If a majority prefer something with stage, I think it should
> be stage-push-merge to avoid any confusion over what it does and what
> previous aliases were doing.
>
> Marcus
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> gerrit-merge sounds like it is gerrit related, like gerrit-push.
>>
>> stage-merge is more appropriate I think except that is is already used
>> after stage-push.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Marcus D. Hanwell
>> <marcus.hanwell at kitware.com> wrote:
>>> Bill,
>>>
>>> I will check it is there, and possibly bold it out to make it stand
>>> out. Glad you got it sorted. On a related note, do you and others have
>>> feelings about the name of the one step merge command?
>>> stage-push-merge, gerrit-merge etc? I would like to decide and then
>>> update the docs in order to avoid any confusion.
>>>
>>> I think gerrit-merge may be the most logical, and what it would
>>> ultimately become...
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Marcus,
>>>>
>>>> That did it!. I must have missed that in the documentation?
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Marcus D. Hanwell
>>>> <marcus.hanwell at kitware.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Marcus,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried to push a patch to an existing topic. Here is what I did:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) git fetch http://review.source.kitware.com/p/ITK
>>>>>> refs/changes/02/302/2 && git checkout FETCH_HEAD -b
>>>>>> ConstShapedNeighborhoodIterator-ExposeSuperclass-Methods
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Edited file, compiled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) git commit -m "BUG: Misnamed typedef."
>>>>>> Testing/Code/Common/itkConstShapedNeighborhoodIteratorTest.cxx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4) git rebase -i HEAD~2
>>>>>>   Changed commit message. Picked first commit, squashed second
>>>>>> commit. Retained first ChangeId.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5) git gerrit-push
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I get a new entry on gerrit, rather that a patch to the existing one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I swear I have done this several times. Even once to the topic I'm
>>>>>> trying to patch.
>>>>>> http://review.source.kitware.com/#change,302
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You will see several abandoned topics that show my attempts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where did I go wrong?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The Change-Id line *must* be the last line of the commit message. You
>>>>> put something after the Change-Id line (BUG: Misnamed typedef.) If you
>>>>> simply move that up to before the Change-Id line then it would work.
>>>>> Gerrit only uses the final line of the commit message to scan for
>>>>> Change-Id lines.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>