Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What means bup?

[Alec Warner]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 6:53 PM M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote:

> On 23/09/18 22:27, Kent Fredric wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 15:36:23 -0500
> > Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote:
> >> My hand slipped.  What ever happened to assuming the best :(  Are you
> >> going to ping the list every time my hand slips up and I mistype
> >> something?  Not sure you'll have time for it :P
> > Personally, I would love it if more people tried harder to provide
> > meaningful commit messages.
> >
> > "bup" vs "bump" isn't really achieving much, just one of the two are
> > substantially more egregious.
> >
> > Perhaps, if the commit messages were crafted with clarity as their
> > intent, the consequence of accidental typos would be much more
> > inconsequential.
> >
> > ( I seriously think we could do with a *little* more chiding here than
> > we generally see, but like, I'm typically just biting my tongue every
> > time somebody doesn't invest any more effort than to write the word
> > "bump" in their text editor when committing with repoman, cos I really
> > don't want to be a dick about it. There's room for more than 4
> > characters and a space in the subject, and infinitely more space in the
> > body, why do we have to choose the least clear of all options? )
> >
> > Occasional accidents are still gonna happen, but it would be nice if we
> > didn't define accidents and siblings of accidents as the status quo.
> >
> I think Kent has pretty much the point here .. we try to stipulate that
> the commit message describes what the update is, and is clear for *all*
> users of the repository, and not just the relevant maintainer. There is
> also a cronic double-standard for existing or long-standing devs, and
> newer devs, recruits and proxy-maintainers (who get a double-scrutiny
> typically) - and I could easily see how this breeds resentment...
>
> Perhaps it would be simple enough to add a check to repoman for commit
> messages less than 10 characters, and with at least one *additional*
> space, mandating two words in the commit message. It seems draconian,
> but if developers continue to be lazy, what choice does one have?!
>
>
I don't see a problem with 'version bump' as a description. Sometimes you
bump an ebuild because upstream released a new version and you want to
track. I'm fairly against changes describing what was changed (typically
the reader can git show and observe the changes.) The useful information is
*why* the change was made. Sometimes its because "upstream released a new
version."

Like Matt I'm curious what others expect to see in the description.

-A