I am happy to try it in the spirit of trying things. I agree with Noah: I'd love if this were documented in a Git workflow procedure. In particular, which tags should we use, and why.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > > >
