Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bchesneau@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.160.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACLy94Wcb6Tgx5caCeNhet1mDFq55bisiMbdCAZNSJz8+=cY4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAJNb-9o4KcUfM83qguNAL8maO--dG6adTzueKr7WNo5s5rn91g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACLy94VkKJQAcz-uE2jrS_EiD47=-VbL=0bFBh0YVXp09DC5Wg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACLy94Wcb6Tgx5caCeNhet1mDFq55bisiMbdCAZNSJz8+=cY4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:33:21 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAJNb-9pXTOSupDTgTikW5jmtTn5=S8hZJTohRfHf54PK4iFujQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] tag our commits
From: Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com>
To: "dev@couchdb.apache.org" <dev@couchdb.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b339cfb36f60004ecb8cfc0

--047d7b339cfb36f60004ecb8cfc0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Jason Smith <jhs@apache.org> wrote:

> While I'm whining about tags:
>
> Tagging is most useful by having multiple tags per target. My blog post can
> be tagged [vacation] [swaziland] [photos] [family], and then later I can
> find all posts about family.
>
> Git messages are forced to one tag. That's unhelpful because commits
> ideally update code, tests, and documentation. A useful tag might be [ui]
> but I could get the same thing by looking at the history of src/fauxton/.
>
> It is marginally useful at a very dear cost: 4-10 characters per commit
> message.
>
>

Generally a commit should be atomic. And by that I don't mean it has to be
only for doc, tests or some code. a tag named [code] would be useless
indeed. However, in the same vein we are tagging issues on jira we could
have tags describing the feature it attempts to patch. Even the english
allows people to present a idea in a concise way, in 1-2 words.

http:
btree
db api
couch_mrview
couch_index
couch_replicator
couch_http
couch_changes
couch_os
installation

and doc, tests for the one that are only touching these parts are useful.
It helps to have a quick glance among all the commits.

I am seeing many advantages to tag the commits

Having tag helps to have a quick glance on the commits, and raises the
attention of the developer that is interested in such part so you don't
have to watch each commit to figure if he's interested or not. And
naturally people will start to review, and we will stop to see people
committing in master without having at least a formal review (irc is not
formal).

Having tags force naturally people to be atomic and resist to the
temptation to change every part of the code. (The "while I am here do...")

Having tags force people to reread themselves before committing. So will
have less commits fixing the previous commit that was fixing the previous
one....

Having tags improve the visibility of the code in search engines.

So far all communities around that are serious about the code quality are
tagging their commit. Do we care about the code quality?

So I don't think it is not "marginally useful" imo and hopefully you will
reconsider the advantages it can give.

--047d7b339cfb36f60004ecb8cfc0--