| 1 |
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> said: |
| 2 |
> On 10/28/2010 09:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On 10/28/2010 12:30 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +0000, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>>> ssuominen 10/10/28 09:25:23 |
| 7 |
> >>>> |
| 8 |
> >>>> Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild |
| 9 |
> >>>> Log: |
| 10 |
> >>>> qa |
| 11 |
> >>> |
| 12 |
> >>> I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of |
| 13 |
> >>> what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious. |
| 14 |
> >>> I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to |
| 15 |
> >>> be justified by "QA". |
| 16 |
> >> |
| 17 |
> >> removal of quotes from "${A}", EAPI=2 to get src_configure to put |
| 18 |
> >> econf and tc-getCC in, || die to make dobin, rest were unnecessary |
| 19 |
> >> cosmetics not worth logging about |
| 20 |
> >> |
| 21 |
> >> so qa/cosmetics, are you really 'complaining' for not mentioning |
| 22 |
> >> 'cosmetics' in the commitlog? |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > come on man, all you have to say is "clean up and update to EAPI 2". |
| 25 |
> > that is infinitely better than a useless "qa". people can easily |
| 26 |
> > interpret "QA stuff" in a variety of significantly different ways. |
| 27 |
> > -mike |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> agreed, |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> I wasn't saying it was a perfect commit message. my point is more "why |
| 33 |
> are we having pointless discussion of commit messages in the first |
| 34 |
> place?" ;-) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Because it is not pointless. Useful commit messages save lots of time. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Mark Loeser |
| 40 |
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org |
| 41 |
email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com |
| 42 |
web - http://www.halcy0n.com |
Archives