incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Commit message summaries
Date Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:10:23 GMT
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
<jogischmidt@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 6/21/12 11:47 AM, Herbert Duerr wrote:
>> On 21.06.2012 10:17, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> We have already introduced the Patch by, Review By .. fields for adding
>>> further information.
>>>
>>> How about logs like
>>>
>>> ####
>>> <issuenumber>:<issue subject line>
>>
>> I agree that the issue subject line is better than nothing, but I prefer
>> that the subject line is about why the change was made. See e.g. the six
>> different changes for issue 118923. Why would anyone want the same
>> change header for each commit when you can have a description instead
>> that matches the change much better?
>
> good point and I agree.
>
> That means we use something like
>
> ###
> <issuenumber> + <1_line_summary/description>
>
> <longer description_on_demand>
>
> <patch_by_on_demand>
> ...
> ###
>
> where
>
> <issuenumber> is
>
> - either the plain <number> + ":"
> - or #<number>#
> - or #i<number>#
>
> I can live with all but we should agree on one notation. My preference
> is the first and then the second. I don't think we need the lower case
> 'i' anymore.
>
> Older commit messages can be interpreted by knowing the older
> conventions and today we have only one bugtracker.
>

It may also be possible to change a commit message using svn propedit.
 Does anyone know if this is enabled for committer access?

See:   http://subversion.apache.org/faq.html#change-log-msg

This could also be useful for older commits that used a different
format for "patch by:" acknowledgements.

-Rob


> Issues from other bugtracker systems should be ideally duplicated in our
> system. The other systems can be public or private bug tracking systems
> and issue numbers of the latter ones don't help anybody.
>
> I would like to hear other opinions of people who actually work with our
> code.
>
> Juergen
>
>>
>> I'm also against using a bare issue number, because having a number that
>> can be reliably parsed by eventual tools (e.g. a tool that updates
>> bugzilla with the revision number, a tool that links the revision commit
>> to the corresponding bug URL, etc.) is no extra effort whereas it opens
>> a whole world of opportunities. I prefer that computers do such work
>> that can be automated because they are rather good at that.
>>
>>> fix:<short description/summary>
>>
>> I like the commit conventions used in the linux kernel. Browse some
>> "commit" links of the kernel shortlog at
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=shortlog
>> to see some examples.
>>
>>> A common notation used by all would be of course helpful
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Herbert
>
>

Mime
View raw message