Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What means bup?

[M. J. Everitt]

On 24/09/18 03:27, Matthew Thode wrote:
> On 18-09-23 21:39:01, Alec Warner wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 6:53 PM M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/09/18 22:27, Kent Fredric wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 15:36:23 -0500
>>>> Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote:
>>>>> My hand slipped.  What ever happened to assuming the best :(  Are you
>>>>> going to ping the list every time my hand slips up and I mistype
>>>>> something?  Not sure you'll have time for it :P
>>>> Personally, I would love it if more people tried harder to provide
>>>> meaningful commit messages.
>>>>
>>>> "bup" vs "bump" isn't really achieving much, just one of the two are
>>>> substantially more egregious.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, if the commit messages were crafted with clarity as their
>>>> intent, the consequence of accidental typos would be much more
>>>> inconsequential.
>>>>
>>>> ( I seriously think we could do with a *little* more chiding here than
>>>> we generally see, but like, I'm typically just biting my tongue every
>>>> time somebody doesn't invest any more effort than to write the word
>>>> "bump" in their text editor when committing with repoman, cos I really
>>>> don't want to be a dick about it. There's room for more than 4
>>>> characters and a space in the subject, and infinitely more space in the
>>>> body, why do we have to choose the least clear of all options? )
>>>>
>>>> Occasional accidents are still gonna happen, but it would be nice if we
>>>> didn't define accidents and siblings of accidents as the status quo.
>>>>
>>> I think Kent has pretty much the point here .. we try to stipulate that
>>> the commit message describes what the update is, and is clear for *all*
>>> users of the repository, and not just the relevant maintainer. There is
>>> also a cronic double-standard for existing or long-standing devs, and
>>> newer devs, recruits and proxy-maintainers (who get a double-scrutiny
>>> typically) - and I could easily see how this breeds resentment...
>>>
>>> Perhaps it would be simple enough to add a check to repoman for commit
>>> messages less than 10 characters, and with at least one *additional*
>>> space, mandating two words in the commit message. It seems draconian,
>>> but if developers continue to be lazy, what choice does one have?!
>>>
>>>
>> I don't see a problem with 'version bump' as a description. Sometimes you
>> bump an ebuild because upstream released a new version and you want to
>> track. I'm fairly against changes describing what was changed (typically
>> the reader can git show and observe the changes.) The useful information is
>> *why* the change was made. Sometimes its because "upstream released a new
>> version."
>>
>> Like Matt I'm curious what others expect to see in the description.
>>
> That's exactly why I release much of the stuff I do, I get a task in
> todoist via ifttt monitoring a github atom feed that a new release is
> out and I package it.
>
If you have automated tooling, surely it's not impossible to make that
tooling generate a semi-meaningful commit message on-the-fly too ...
just sayin' ...