Hi all, can we agree on how we want to identify changes - when deploying code - when merging follow-ups - when commenting on bugzilla? Take a look at http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Server_admin_log to see an example of a mix between Gerrit legacy change IDs (integers, as URLs) and commit IDs. For commit messages the recommendation is to use change IDs (as hashes). So this means constant back and forth between different ID types, which is confusing to developers and users. I'm personally not a fan of the Gerrit change-IDs in plain form, because I can't use them with commands like 'git log' or 'git show' without grepping through commit messages. They tie us pretty heavily to Gerrit as the gateway to all info as opposed to using Git's native lookup capabilities. One proposal: - Gerrit URLs for links on Bugzilla, links on wikis, follow-up to un-merged commits - Commit SHA-1s for deployment log entries and follow-ups to merged commits Rationale: - A Gerrit URL helps others skip past the fragile Gerrit search and go right to the relevant change. This gives them access to change-ID, SHA-1s, and anything else they may need. It's appropriate when you're likely to need to go into the full context of a change. - A SHA-1 gives you instant visibility to the code in your repo without having to use Gerrit as an intermediary, or having to do slow searches of your commit messages for a change-ID. Just do 'git show'. Git intelligently parses abbreviated hashes as well. It's appropriate when you're past the point of code review and are just referring to a change that's sitting somewhere in the repo. This is just one possible approach, and I'm sure this is something we can argue about endlessly. I don't much care what pattern we adopt, as long as it's reasonably consistent, especially for deployment log entries and follow-ups. Thanks, Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate