1 |
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:57:38PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 08:43:12 -0800 Trevor King wrote: |
3 |
> > The body of the commit message should summarize the consensus |
4 |
> > reached on the mailing list, |
5 |
> |
6 |
> That message is written as part of the patch that is reviewed; it |
7 |
> rarely gets updated with the consensus, unless we suggest / require |
8 |
> people to do that. However, similar to vapier's response, I'd think |
9 |
> introducing such processes feel like unnecessary efforts. |
10 |
|
11 |
If it doesn't need to get updated, then it probably already started |
12 |
out explaining the consensus ;). |
13 |
|
14 |
> > and these tags are basically standardized thank-you notes crediting |
15 |
> > non-authors who were involved in that process. They don't have to go |
16 |
> > on every patch, but if you want to mention somebody: |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > Reviewed-by: Random J Developer <random@×××××××××××××××××.org> |
19 |
> > Reviewed-by: Other R Developer <other@×××××××××××××××××.org> |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > at the end of the commit message is easier to write and read than: |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > This patch was reviewed Random J Developer |
24 |
> > <random@×××××××××××××××××.org> and Other R Developer |
25 |
> > <other@×××××××××××××××××.org>. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Exactly: Do we want to spend time on this or not? Do we add everyone |
28 |
> involved? Or do we just add people whom are not on the Portage team? |
29 |
|
30 |
You spend time if you want to spend time and add whoever you feel |
31 |
moved to add. I think the spirit of Alexander's original proposal [1] |
32 |
was “here is a common syntax for crediting collaborators, we might |
33 |
want to use it” not “ye non-conformers will be hounded unto the ends |
34 |
of the Earth”. If you are submitting v2 of a patch, and feel a desire |
35 |
to credit reviewers / testers with this syntax, I think that's |
36 |
considerate of you. If you are committing someone else's patch to |
37 |
master, and want to record the folks who acked it on the list to |
38 |
distribute responsibility, that's fine too. If you want to use |
39 |
another syntax, or not do any of this at all, it's still fine by me |
40 |
;). However, if a consistent syntax already exists, I see no reason |
41 |
not to use it when it suits your purpose. |
42 |
|
43 |
> Unless we intend to introduce this for statistics, although I think |
44 |
> that prior annotation history missing as well as people that will |
45 |
> casually forgot to add these annotations will make the statistics a |
46 |
> misrepresentation. |
47 |
|
48 |
I agree that statistics based on these tags are not meaningful. |
49 |
|
50 |
Cheers, |
51 |
Trevor |
52 |
|
53 |
[1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/3948 |
54 |
|
55 |
-- |
56 |
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). |
57 |
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy |