define vendor key for added metadata #12
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
|
Hmm… any reason not to have these vendor-specific data go into the review message? |
Member
|
This feels like "User-Agent" field. I think #10 (comment) is a better approach. |
Contributor
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
So I feel we need an added statement to add a compromise for #10
I know many orgs will have extra metadata they want to sign as part of automation or general evidence etc. Maybe an org wants to include their CI job ID, or has their own review format. Maybe they already use something like Google's git-appraise and want to be able to include hashes of their detailed review blobs from the refs/notes/devtools/reviews ref in their git/refs/signatures. Maybe they want to include ticket numbers from their internal issue system etc.
I don't think we should stop people from including data they feel is valuable to show context around a change, but we should regulate that it goes somewhere that the spec won't ever interpret.
I suggest we include a vendor key to allow for use cases we can't think of yet.
E.g. make new pre-spec git-signatures features use the: ""vendor: { git-signatures:{} }" namespace