| 1 |
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:59:40 -0400 |
| 2 |
Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> So e.g.: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> "Bump to x.y.z for bug 12345"? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Is there an annotation for "this commit is relevant to bug X, but does not |
| 10 |
> close bug X?" |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I'm less sure we need the metadata all in the summary (because its supposed |
| 13 |
> to be a summary.) |
| 14 |
> If the commits are annotated (Closes: bugX, BugRef: bugX...) we can amend |
| 15 |
> the tools to look at the annotatoins and not hand parse the summary. |
| 16 |
> It also helps for linkification. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Well, yes, there's a limit to the summary length anyway that repoman |
| 19 |
enforces ;) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
But the point being to *maximise* the use of this "summary" message, |
| 22 |
and make good use of the "body" section of the "commit message". |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
And there's already annotations for this in the body section, |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/123456 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
( This references but does not close ) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/123456 |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
( This closes ) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
In the summary line, you don't really need to clarify if it closes or not. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Much of the benefit is knowing wilikins will see that message in |
| 37 |
#gentoo-commits, and then cite the entire bug summary in response. |
| 38 |
( Including its current status of closed/open ) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> > |
| 42 |
> > If I made changes in the ebuild in the bump itself, I'll attempt to |
| 43 |
> > describe the nature of those changes (from the perspective of the |
| 44 |
> > consumer)' |
| 45 |
> > |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> You don't do that in the shortlog though..right? There is very little room. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
See above. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> Just for clarity, this all sounds like "changelog" stuff; are we still |
| 53 |
> generating changelogs from git commit descriptions? If so, this all seems |
| 54 |
> on the up and up to me. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Generated changelogs are something that we were supposed to have, but |
| 57 |
they got culled from rsync tree for a host of reasons. ( One being they |
| 58 |
weren't generated in reverse-chronological order, which made them a |
| 59 |
boon to read ) |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
But I still find having it documented useful even without this feature |
| 62 |
( In the long term, we may find our users collectively start to prefer |
| 63 |
git to rsync, and having good change notes makes that even better for |
| 64 |
them ) |
Archives