1 |
On 18-09-23 21:39:01, Alec Warner wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 6:53 PM M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > On 23/09/18 22:27, Kent Fredric wrote: |
5 |
> > > On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 15:36:23 -0500 |
6 |
> > > Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> > >> My hand slipped. What ever happened to assuming the best :( Are you |
8 |
> > >> going to ping the list every time my hand slips up and I mistype |
9 |
> > >> something? Not sure you'll have time for it :P |
10 |
> > > Personally, I would love it if more people tried harder to provide |
11 |
> > > meaningful commit messages. |
12 |
> > > |
13 |
> > > "bup" vs "bump" isn't really achieving much, just one of the two are |
14 |
> > > substantially more egregious. |
15 |
> > > |
16 |
> > > Perhaps, if the commit messages were crafted with clarity as their |
17 |
> > > intent, the consequence of accidental typos would be much more |
18 |
> > > inconsequential. |
19 |
> > > |
20 |
> > > ( I seriously think we could do with a *little* more chiding here than |
21 |
> > > we generally see, but like, I'm typically just biting my tongue every |
22 |
> > > time somebody doesn't invest any more effort than to write the word |
23 |
> > > "bump" in their text editor when committing with repoman, cos I really |
24 |
> > > don't want to be a dick about it. There's room for more than 4 |
25 |
> > > characters and a space in the subject, and infinitely more space in the |
26 |
> > > body, why do we have to choose the least clear of all options? ) |
27 |
> > > |
28 |
> > > Occasional accidents are still gonna happen, but it would be nice if we |
29 |
> > > didn't define accidents and siblings of accidents as the status quo. |
30 |
> > > |
31 |
> > I think Kent has pretty much the point here .. we try to stipulate that |
32 |
> > the commit message describes what the update is, and is clear for *all* |
33 |
> > users of the repository, and not just the relevant maintainer. There is |
34 |
> > also a cronic double-standard for existing or long-standing devs, and |
35 |
> > newer devs, recruits and proxy-maintainers (who get a double-scrutiny |
36 |
> > typically) - and I could easily see how this breeds resentment... |
37 |
> > |
38 |
> > Perhaps it would be simple enough to add a check to repoman for commit |
39 |
> > messages less than 10 characters, and with at least one *additional* |
40 |
> > space, mandating two words in the commit message. It seems draconian, |
41 |
> > but if developers continue to be lazy, what choice does one have?! |
42 |
> > |
43 |
> > |
44 |
> I don't see a problem with 'version bump' as a description. Sometimes you |
45 |
> bump an ebuild because upstream released a new version and you want to |
46 |
> track. I'm fairly against changes describing what was changed (typically |
47 |
> the reader can git show and observe the changes.) The useful information is |
48 |
> *why* the change was made. Sometimes its because "upstream released a new |
49 |
> version." |
50 |
> |
51 |
> Like Matt I'm curious what others expect to see in the description. |
52 |
> |
53 |
|
54 |
That's exactly why I release much of the stuff I do, I get a task in |
55 |
todoist via ifttt monitoring a github atom feed that a new release is |
56 |
out and I package it. |
57 |
|
58 |
-- |
59 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |