Agree. I've seen the following format repeated in other Apache components:
*SENTRY-2026: Bump Hadoop version from 2.7.2 to 2.7.4 (Na Li, reviewed by Sergio Pena)* That is really helpful. We should use that to know who review the code and who is the author of the code as well. On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Na Li <lina...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Sasha, > > I agree we should have consistent format. It is better to include author, > then followed by reviewer. So we can have all information at a glance. > > Lina > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Alexander Kolbasov <ak...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I noticed that recently our commit messages became veru inconsistent: > > > > The format we used to have: > > > > SENTRY-2014: incorrect handling of HDFS paths with multiple forward > slashes > > (Vadim Spector, reviewed by Sergio Pena and Arjun Mishra) > > > > SENTRY-2015 - Refactor Command implementations > > - Reviewed by Sergio Pena > > > > Here reviewer is in the second line > > > > SENTRY-2013 - Align the SentryGenericServiceClient and > > SentryPolicyServiceClient a bit more closely > > - Signed off by Kalyan. > > > > Here there is no reviewer by it has "Signed off', > > > > SENTRY-2017: Fix Sentry e2e tests to use > > SentryMetastorePostEventListenerNotificationLog. > > > > No committer or reviewers here > > > > I think we should agree on one standard format, document it and follow it > > for all commits. > > > > - Alex. > > >
