| 1 |
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:32:35 -0800 |
| 2 |
"W. Trevor King" <wking@×××××××.us> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> If the initial submission does not express the consensus, you can |
| 5 |
> either ask for a resubmission that does, or say “Alice, is it ok if I |
| 6 |
> change your commit message to read ‘…’? when I commit it?”. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
This assumes the committer would ask that, which barely happens. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Also, history rewriting is not acceptable as far as I know... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> No policy/suggestion/goal is going to be followed 100% of the time. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This way, it seems preferable to use the mailing list when blaming. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> If most commits, especially those that were contentious enough to go |
| 17 |
> through a few rounds of revision, have a commit message with a good |
| 18 |
> summary, then the future developer using blame has good odds of |
| 19 |
> finding something useful. I think that's a good goal to shoot for, |
| 20 |
> even if you don't hit it all the time. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The only realistic way to obtain this is to make it policy, or at |
| 23 |
least make it checked as part of the review process; now neither |
| 24 |
appears present, hence using blame has good odds of something useless. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Even if you only consider the present, improving your commit message |
| 27 |
> to address tricky implementation details or unclear motivation before |
| 28 |
> submitting the next revision on a patch series will help reviewers |
| 29 |
> understand your patch better in the first place. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
+1 |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
With kind regards, |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 37 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 40 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 41 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives