On 07/10/2014 Kay Schenk wrote:
Your patch has now been committed to trunk and noted in the issue. Good job! Please feel free to continue your work with us either in the Help area or elsewhere.
Thanks Zimuzo for your first patch! Two things, one for Zimuzo and one generic:
1) Zimuzo, if you are still looking for a new issue just let us know: you can probably find plenty of suggestions for similar fixes in the l10n list archives http://markmail.org/search/list:org.apache.incubator.ooo-l10n but we can suggest specific ones if you prefer.
2) All: Do we have a "canonical" way to attribute commits? Ohloh, or whatever it's called now, will still be hopelessly broken (as a consequence of how attribution in SVN and GIT works) and misrepresent attribution, so 5-6 contributors are actually hidden behind the username "pescetti" because I committed their patches. In this case Kay http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1629549 used "i125621 Patch by: zimuzo ezeosue". It is surely clear to a human reader. I wonder if we can make it easier to parse. For example, the issue reference should be #i125621# (with '#' signs) for our Bugzilla bot to see it and annotate the corresponding issue automatically. But do we have (or want) a standard for attribution? I tend, in general, to write something like
--- #i999999# Fix problem with XYZ Patch-By: Xxxxxx Yyyyy <m...@example.com> --- but I can change it to any other convention if we decide to adopt one. Regards, Andrea. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
