| 1 |
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:51:14 -0800 |
| 2 |
"W. Trevor King" <wking@×××××××.us> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 04:40:19PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:32:35 -0800 W. Trevor King wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > If the initial submission does not express the consensus, you can |
| 7 |
> > > either ask for a resubmission that does, or say “Alice, is it ok |
| 8 |
> > > if I change your commit message to read ‘…’? when I commit it?”. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > This assumes the committer would ask that, which barely happens. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> If neither the committer nor the author feel like checking for this, |
| 13 |
> it's probably not going to happen ;). |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> > Also, history rewriting is not acceptable as far as I know... |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> It's not rewriting history if the patch hasn't been pushed to a stable |
| 18 |
> branch yet. When you commit the patch, adjusting it in ways that the |
| 19 |
> author has agreed to shouldn't count as “rewriting history”. It's |
| 20 |
> only rewriting after you've pushed the original patch into a stable |
| 21 |
> branch. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> > > No policy/suggestion/goal is going to be followed 100% of the |
| 24 |
> > > time. |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > This way, it seems preferable to use the mailing list when blaming. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Unless some of the discussion happened on IRC. There are several |
| 29 |
> possible channels for patch discussion, but only one commit message |
| 30 |
> per patch. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Exactly, without knowledge codification all that will continue to be |
| 33 |
a "feel like", "probably not", "shouldn't", "unless some". |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
With kind regards, |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 39 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 42 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 43 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives