On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's why I said "optional". If people want too use "[docs] Add foo > docs" then be my guest. But requiring it seems like trouble. (It > effectively means we can never accept squashed changes.) > hrmmm, generally you're squashing only related commits so it should work. It works in the linux project at least. > > On 4 December 2013 17:58, Alexander Shorin <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > >>> >> > >>> > > > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater >
