| 1 |
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 04:40:19PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:32:35 -0800 W. Trevor King wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If the initial submission does not express the consensus, you can |
| 4 |
> > either ask for a resubmission that does, or say “Alice, is it ok |
| 5 |
> > if I change your commit message to read ‘…’? when I commit it?”. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> This assumes the committer would ask that, which barely happens. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
If neither the committer nor the author feel like checking for this, |
| 10 |
it's probably not going to happen ;). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Also, history rewriting is not acceptable as far as I know... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It's not rewriting history if the patch hasn't been pushed to a stable |
| 15 |
branch yet. When you commit the patch, adjusting it in ways that the |
| 16 |
author has agreed to shouldn't count as “rewriting history”. It's |
| 17 |
only rewriting after you've pushed the original patch into a stable |
| 18 |
branch. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> > No policy/suggestion/goal is going to be followed 100% of the time. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> This way, it seems preferable to use the mailing list when blaming. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Unless some of the discussion happened on IRC. There are several |
| 25 |
possible channels for patch discussion, but only one commit message |
| 26 |
per patch. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Cheers, |
| 29 |
Trevor |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). |
| 33 |
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy |
Archives