I've done the changelog too don't forget :) My view on that: the main problem is that people (commiters and PR authors both) don't think about changelog when writing the PR/commit title - often there isn't enough context in the title to make it useful enough to know what the commit actual changed (I am _not_ in favour of putting area/scope in the PR subject as a rule - simply because of the number of characters it takes up) or sometimes even what the bug that was fixed was.
On 26 April 2020 14:38:17 BST, Tomasz Urbaszek <turbas...@apache.org> wrote: >I agree with Ash that it's a committer's task to check the commit name. >But >I personally was deceived by a discrepancy between PR name and commit >title >and merged the PR with "wrong" commit message. > >That's where I agree with Jarek: we should help ourselves. If "red >check" >will make people correct the commit / PR title then there will be less >work >for us and fewer mistakes made by us. Also, semantic commits have a >nice >side effect: they teach about commit messages. I think having a tool to >check and teach is better having a "you should follow this" link, which >in >most cases is ticked without clicking the link (btw. should we measure >it?). > >One of my reason to suggest it was a conventional changelog that could >be >auto-generated. As Jarek mentioned currently it's mostly done by @Kaxil >and >it would be interesting to hear what he thinks about it. > >T. > >On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 2:44 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> >wrote: > >> I think you pointed out the exact things I thought are important and >could >> be automated. I think those are the very things committing checks >for. >> >> I think we could benefit from 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 (6. with exceptions >indeed but >> a warning or a way to mark an exception would be nice - similarly as >we do >> with pylint). >> I certainly did not want to improve automatically on the 5 (yet) and >7 >> (here it's much more of a convention we agree between the committers >- >> whether the body should be optional - I think it should and whether >it >> should be opt-out rather than opt-in - I thin it should be opt-out). >> >> There are quite a few commits currently with ... when you look at >> the commit log in Github for one (because they do not obey the >subject >> length) - I picked the ones without JIRAs - still even without JIRAs >> sometimes the subject is too long: >> >> - >> >> >https://github.com/apache/airflow/commit/d883ff49ca2841f91ab7e0ab98204d5ad271473b >> - >> >> >https://github.com/apache/airflow/commit/bc230a9711fec2004e20f46aee22fb44c7461b6c >> - >> >> >https://github.com/apache/airflow/commit/fa262c12f87102a7ae1abb11ea7f0d5e8be0de47 >> >> However - this is secondary. It was merely a comment on the possible >> completion of the "semantic convention" approach. This is the main >subject. >> >> I think the main idea behind the semantic commit/PR is the prefix is >that >> it allows for much easier and consistent ChangeLog generation. For >example >> in Angular you have >> https://github.com/angular/angular/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md which is >> generated automatically including breaking changes etc. I think it's >> mainly Kaxil's work now to prepare the changelog and group the >changes into >> separate buckets, so Kaxil - maybe your opinion is important here. If >there >> is a way everyone as committers and contributors we can do to make >release >> manager's job easier - I think we should do it. >> >> BTW. The convention is easy to follow without any tools. However >commitizen >> has the nice feature of also guiding new users - it provides a nice >> explanation of the types you have defined in the project and guide >the new >> users how to write a good commit. I think it might be really nice >touch for >> our "welcoming community" approach. See the 5 minutes video about it: >> >> >https://egghead.io/lessons/javascript-writing-conventional-commits-with-commitizen >> >> J. >> >> J. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 2:13 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> >wrote: >> >> > My main objection is this is trying to apply a technical solution >to a >> > people+English problem. This feels like just one extra step to have >> > commiters to do, when we as committers can very easily correct this >in >> > Github whilst reviewing/before merging. >> > >> > That said, can you point at any examples of recent commits that you >> > think would have been clearer as a result of using? >> > >> > (Also a significant proportion of commits from form a git gui or an >ide, >> > so cz-cli won't help those users.) >> > >> > The "good commit messages" we already link to >> > https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/ has these points >> > >> > 1. Separate subject from body with a blank line >> > 2. Limit the subject line to 50 characters >> > 3. Capitalize the subject line >> > 4. Do not end the subject line with a period >> > 5. Use the imperative mood in the subject line >> > 6. Wrap the body at 72 characters >> > 7. Use the body to explain what and why vs. how >> > >> > 2 we _could_ enforce, but it is not a hard-and-fast rule. 5 and 7 >is >> > almost impossible for a computer to enforce. 6 always has >exceptions. >> > The most important ones is 7, and that is the hardest to >programitcally >> > enforce. >> > >> > -a >> > >> > On Apr 26 2020, at 11:30 am, Jarek Potiuk ><jarek.pot...@polidea.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > I think it's a very good idea to use it. We already discussed >that we >> > > should have some improvements in the way we write commits - and >why to >> > > come up with our own conventions if we can adopt one that already >> > > exists and has set of nice tools available. >> > > >> > > As usual, I think automation is a key - as it might make lives of >> > > committers a bit easier. There are already a number of tools that >we >> > > could use together with such convention, as both pre-commits and >a bot >> > > in Github. >> > > There are quite a few tools that embraced the concept of semantic >> > > pr/semantic commits and I have heard good words about them from >other >> > > open-source projects. I've heard especially good words about >> > > commitizen CLI, that could work hand-in-hand with semantic >> > > commits/PRs: >> > > >> > > https://github.com/commitizen/cz-cli >> > > >> > > One of the things it has it also integrates with commit lint >where we >> > > could write our own rules and make them more meaningful >> > > https://commitlint.js.org/#/ >> > > >> > > Also, there are ready-to-use changelog generators that we can use >(for >> > > example https://github.com/commitizen/cz-conventional-changelog ) >> > > >> > > Those are tools coming from the nodejs world, but I do not see a >big >> > > problem with using them (of course trying them out first) - since >we >> > > can now connect it via pre-commit, it should be easy to add all >that >> > > to our toolbox. >> > > >> > > J. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 10:44 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor ><a...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> I agree that many commit messages are often lacking but I'm not >a fan >> > >> of that the prefix style that app requires, - plus I think it >would >> > >> still be possible to have unhelpful PR titles just with 'fix:' >> prefixed. >> > >> >> > >> Is rather we as commiters updated the pr subjects when >reviewing. The >> > >> rule I try to follow is to (mentally) prefix the message with >"When >> > >> this commit is applied it will ..." >> > >> >> > >> -a >> > >> >> > >> On 26 April 2020 09:34:56 BST, Tomasz Urbaszek ><turbas...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> >Hi all! >> > >> > >> > >> >Sometimes it happens that pull requests or commits have not so >> > >> >meaningful messages and it's hard to say what's exactly going >on. >> > >> >So I am wondering if we would like to consider using semantic >pull >> > >> >request: https://github.com/zeke/semantic-pull-requests >> > >> > >> > >> >Since we are using Github it should be pretty easy to add: >> > >> >https://github.com/apps/semantic-pull-requests >> > >> > >> > >> >Of course, it does not solve the problem of "pr message" but >> > >> >definitely it raises attention about it. On the other hand, it >should >> > >> >also help with publishing changelogs. Personally I like this >approach >> > >> >and I used to use it before joining Airflow. >> > >> > >> > >> >Happy to see what you think about it. And sorry if it was >decided >> some >> > >> >ago that Airflow won't follow it. >> > >> > >> > >> >Cheers, >> > >> >Tomek >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > >> > > Jarek Potiuk >> > > Polidea | Principal Software Engineer >> > > >> > > M: +48 660 796 129 >> > > >> > >> >> >> -- >> >> Jarek Potiuk >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer >> >> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >>
