| 1 |
On 10/28/2010 09:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 10/28/2010 12:30 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +0000, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> ssuominen 10/10/28 09:25:23 |
| 6 |
>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild |
| 8 |
>>>> Log: |
| 9 |
>>>> qa |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of |
| 12 |
>>> what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious. |
| 13 |
>>> I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to |
| 14 |
>>> be justified by "QA". |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> removal of quotes from "${A}", EAPI=2 to get src_configure to put |
| 17 |
>> econf and tc-getCC in, || die to make dobin, rest were unnecessary |
| 18 |
>> cosmetics not worth logging about |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> so qa/cosmetics, are you really 'complaining' for not mentioning |
| 21 |
>> 'cosmetics' in the commitlog? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> come on man, all you have to say is "clean up and update to EAPI 2". |
| 24 |
> that is infinitely better than a useless "qa". people can easily |
| 25 |
> interpret "QA stuff" in a variety of significantly different ways. |
| 26 |
> -mike |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
agreed, |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I wasn't saying it was a perfect commit message. my point is more "why |
| 32 |
are we having pointless discussion of commit messages in the first |
| 33 |
place?" ;-) |
Archives