Return-Path: 
 <ooo-dev-return-21672-apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EA6E19E70
	for <apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org>;
 Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:10:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 95295 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2012 18:10:24 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 95224 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2012 18:10:24 -0000
Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ooo-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
List-Id: <ooo-dev.incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 95215 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jun 2012 18:10:24 -0000
Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:10:24 +0000
Received: from localhost (HELO mail-vb0-f47.google.com) (127.0.0.1)
  (smtp-auth username robweir, mechanism plain)
  by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP;
 Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:10:24 +0000
Received: by vbbfr13 with SMTP id fr13so476520vbb.6
        for <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>;
 Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.221.9.197 with SMTP id ox5mr2143479vcb.17.1340302223261; Thu,
 21 Jun 2012 11:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.190.13 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FE30F31.2060503@googlemail.com>
References: <20120620065836.7F3072388962@eris.apache.org>
	<4FE2C107.3060809@apache.org>
	<4FE2CAF2.3040106@googlemail.com>
	<CAHTCm3OYeteG6PJBmpfoXt5J6Qxy1CYC3+v4A_0Jky1pfmSyeQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FE2D8A7.2020409@googlemail.com>
	<4FE2EDB9.6080805@apache.org>
	<4FE30F31.2060503@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:10:23 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAP-ksohOo1ChVEVb6cDzFE8SUXQXJ0-qOa=3CG91WG8VkUe4pA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Commit message summaries
From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:10 AM, J=C3=BCrgen Schmidt
<jogischmidt@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 6/21/12 11:47 AM, Herbert Duerr wrote:
>> On 21.06.2012 10:17, J=C3=BCrgen 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=3Dlinux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=3Ds=
hortlog
>> to see some examples.
>>
>>> A common notation used by all would be of course helpful
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Herbert
>
>