Yea, same tag, but as word (: -- ,,,^..^,,,
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Dale Harvey <[email protected]> wrote: > "Document foo/bar config option" > > > On 4 December 2013 16:54, Alexander Shorin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On other hand when you see commit message: >> >> Add foo/bar config option >> >> What is your first though? Oh, new config option! But no, that was >> missed option description in docs. To resolve such collision I may tag >> my commit message: >> >> Docs: add foo/bar config option // now you know what have changed! >> >> or imagine something like: >> >> Add missed foo/bar/config option description in docs // too long >> >> How I could solve this problem? >> >> -- >> ,,,^..^,,, >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Jason Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> > -1 >> > >> > We do this at Nodejitsu and I find it tedious and unhelpful. It's a bit >> of >> > ceremony with little benefit. For me at least, I never want to see "only >> > [foo] commits" I want to see "only commits in subdirectory foo/". >> Otherwise >> > I see the commits through `git blame`. >> > >> > That's my opinion, but I am comfortable being overruled. >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> > >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I would like to propose that we start to tag our commits. The reasonning >> >> behind that is to distinct easily the changes concerning the doc, the >> ui >> >> and the core and filter them immediately and force us to make a change >> >> atomic. So I would like to propose that we tag the commit line with >> >> >> >> [DOC] >> >> [UI] >> >> [CORE] >> >> >> >> other ? Another way to distinct the changes would also be to have all of >> >> these as subprojects eventually but it may require too much changes. >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> - benoit >> >> >>
