| 1 |
On 07/25/2017 04:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Here's the current draft: |
| 4 |
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:Git |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
It's mostly fine, but there are two changes I disagree with: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> When doing one or more changes that require a revision bump, bump the |
| 10 |
> revision in the commit including the first change. Split the changes |
| 11 |
> into multiple logical commits without further revision bumps — since |
| 12 |
> they are going to be pushed in a single push, the user will not be |
| 13 |
> exposed to interim state. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
We shouldn't play games in the repo and hope that everything works out |
| 16 |
if we wait to push until just the right time. We're not going to run out |
| 17 |
of numbers -- it's simpler and more correct to do a new revision with |
| 18 |
each commit. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Gentoo developers are still frequently using Gentoo-Bug tag, |
| 22 |
> sometimes followed by Gentoo-Bug-URL. Using both simultaneously is |
| 23 |
> meaningless (they are redundant), and using the former has no |
| 24 |
> advantages over using the classic #nnnnnn form in the summary or the |
| 25 |
> body. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
There are two main advantages over having the bug number in the summary. |
| 28 |
Space is at a premium in the summary, as Tobias pointed out, and the |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Gentoo-Bug: whatever |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
format is trivially machine-readable, whereas sticking it somewhere else |
| 33 |
is less so. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
And just a reminder -- Gokturk worked to get a lot of this stuff into |
| 36 |
the devmanual, e.g. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-maintenance/index.html |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Some of that is important, like the warning not to use "bug #x" in the |
| 41 |
body of the commit message. |
Archives