Gerrit should track follow-ups to a merged change (by commit SHA-1 and Change-Id), like CodeReview used to.
Currently finding commit fixes, reverts or cherry-pick requires going through the comments (which are usually aplenty and mostly automated junk), if it was even mentioned in them, or doing some serious git archeology.
Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement
(This was brought up by Emufarmers at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2014-March/074943.html .)
Couldn't we abuse our Gerrit -> Bugzilla tool for that? If a changeset A is uploaded and it contains something looking like a SHA1/Gerrit Change-Id in the commit message referring to changeset B, add a comment to B that links to A.
Now that many Gerrit repos are viewable in Phabricator's Diffusion app, do we not have such a feature? For example, rMW1e06a9f02f9a: mediawiki.legacy.config: use own help-field styling lists two mentions of the commit hash in later commits, which are fixes for bugs that had been introduced.
The main limitations (versus what was asked for here) are that you have to include the commit hash and not just Gerrit's Change-Id, and that the comments are not automatically posted to Gerrit.
Here's an example: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/112368 – Note the sections "Follow-up revisions" and "Past revisions this follows-up on".
Screenshot:
Filled upstream at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=7299 against polygerrit.
GWTUI is in the process of being removed (this is gerrit's current ui) and replaced with polygerrit (the new ui and soon to be default).
In subversion era we were sending the changes directly to trunk and fix up or enhancement were made in following changes. We thus often needed to track the chain of patches by commenting "follow up r1234". So we would have something like:
With Gerrit those follow up are done in the change by amending the commit and once ready we get it merged. We of course still have to do fix up, in my experience people:
And I think that is good enough.