As outlined in my email yesterday, Commit-Queue and Merge-Queue both now reject
any changes that include ChangeLogs.
I will be waiting a few days before actually deleting all of the ChangeLog
files so that contributors with patches that still contain ChangeLogs can apply
those patches without
Lately I have observed more and more and more changes going into WebKit that
lack any details about why a particular change was made. It is intended that
the ChangeLog (and commit message) contain some details about your change, not
just the bug title and URL.
The contributing information on
On Mar 21, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Timothy Hatcher wrote:
Lately I have observed more and more and more changes going into WebKit that
lack any details about why a particular change was made. It is intended that
the ChangeLog (and commit message) contain some details about your change,
not just
Wireless Network
From: Timothy Hatcher [mailto:timo...@apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 05:29 PM
To: webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
Subject: [webkit-dev] ChangeLogs
Lately I have observed morehttp://trac.webkit.org/changeset/111595 and
morehttp://trac.webkit.org
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
I think the challenge in part is to explain why the ChangeLog is useful.
Comments in there hopefully explain why as a guide to reviewers to give
the reviewers and future onlookers a guide to the change.
I do agree that
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Timothy Hatcher wrote:
Lately I have observed more and more and more changes going into WebKit that
lack any details about why a particular change was made. It is intended that
the ChangeLog
On Mar 21, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Timothy Hatcher timo...@apple.com wrote:
Lately I have observed more and more and more changes going into WebKit that
lack any details about why a particular change was made. It is intended that
the ChangeLog
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Timothy Hatcher timo...@apple.com wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Timothy Hatcher timo...@apple.com wrote:
Lately I have observed more and more and more changes going into WebKit that
lack any details about
On Mar 21, 2012, at 3:14 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Timothy Hatcher wrote:
Lately I have observed more and more and more changes going into WebKit that
lack any details about why a
On Mar 21, 2012, at 3:14 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
I think this is a reasonable suggestion, but I don't agree with it :).
I would prefer that we try to get good changelogs through culture and
convention rather than through good tooling.
This is of course based on my experience in my changes
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Timothy Hatcher timo...@apple.com wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 3:14 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
I think this is a reasonable suggestion, but I don't agree with it :).
I would prefer that we try to get good changelogs through culture and
convention rather than
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:55 AM, David Kilzer ddkil...@webkit.org wrote:
(2) Consider phasing in support for an alternate workflow where new
ChangeLog entries for the next commit are stored separately from the
versioned ChangeLog files -- perhaps in individual .changelog files
for Subversion
On Thu, January 28, 2010 at 4:10:11 AM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:55 AM, David Kilzer wrote:
(2) Consider phasing in support for an alternate workflow where new
ChangeLog entries for the next commit are stored separately from the
versioned ChangeLog files -- perhaps
Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
Here's a wip patch to update-webkit's Git part I've been running locally
for a few days now, it has basic resolve-ChangeLogs-support, as well as
mirror support:
http://gist.github.com/287646
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34206
tor arne
On Mon, January 25, 2010 at 10:35:00 PM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
I was reading through the old I HATE CHANGELOGS messages from August:
https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2009-August/thread.html
The discussion attracted a lot of interest and ideas, but it looks
like it died out
I think someone already wrote this for you:
http://ivanz.com/2009/03/19/git-automatic-smart-changelog-merging/
which referrs to
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=blob;f=lib/git-merge-changelog.c;h=b9ab42947b2590b31d69544d566e1f6b04a90100;hb=HEAD
I was using this for a while
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:55 AM, David Kilzer ddkil...@webkit.org wrote:
I think I mentioned this before, but for git users, this can be solved in the
short term by a merge driver that uses resolve-ChangeLogs (once it knows how
to be invoked by git as a merge driver):
This seems like a good
Soon after that I wrote bugzilla-tool (now called webkit-patch). Adam
Barth and I learned that webkit-patch made it easy to just save
patches to bugs, using post and apply-attachment. That was easier
than bothering with branches in many cases (at least branches
containing ChangeLogs).
It's even
I was reading through the old I HATE CHANGELOGS messages from August:
https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2009-August/thread.html
The discussion attracted a lot of interest and ideas, but it looks
like it died out without reaching any conclusion.
It seems like the tools around
On Jan 25, 2010, at 10:39 PM, Eric Seidel wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Eric Seidel esei...@google.com wrote:
Re: #1 I strongly support a wrapper around commit. That's what
webkit-patch land is supposed to be. It allows us to do all sorts
of pre-commit checks!
The check could
20 matches
Mail list logo
