1 |
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 04:40:19PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:32:35 -0800 W. Trevor King wrote: |
3 |
> > If the initial submission does not express the consensus, you can |
4 |
> > either ask for a resubmission that does, or say “Alice, is it ok |
5 |
> > if I change your commit message to read ‘…’? when I commit it?”. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> This assumes the committer would ask that, which barely happens. |
8 |
|
9 |
If neither the committer nor the author feel like checking for this, |
10 |
it's probably not going to happen ;). |
11 |
|
12 |
> Also, history rewriting is not acceptable as far as I know... |
13 |
|
14 |
It's not rewriting history if the patch hasn't been pushed to a stable |
15 |
branch yet. When you commit the patch, adjusting it in ways that the |
16 |
author has agreed to shouldn't count as “rewriting history”. It's |
17 |
only rewriting after you've pushed the original patch into a stable |
18 |
branch. |
19 |
|
20 |
> > No policy/suggestion/goal is going to be followed 100% of the time. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> This way, it seems preferable to use the mailing list when blaming. |
23 |
|
24 |
Unless some of the discussion happened on IRC. There are several |
25 |
possible channels for patch discussion, but only one commit message |
26 |
per patch. |
27 |
|
28 |
Cheers, |
29 |
Trevor |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). |
33 |
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy |