+1 I strongly agree. Commit id title is inconvenient. 2013. 2. 18. 오후 1:04에 "Daniel Juyung Seo" <seojuyu...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
> And it'll be great if the title includes the first line of commit message. > That should be way more useful. > Thanks. > > Daniel Juyung Seo (SeoZ) > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:14 AM, ChunEon Park <her...@naver.com> wrote: > > > By the way, Daniel, > > > > Could it possible to make git mail title messages to be more meaningful? > > > > i.e) [core/efl] xxxmaster updated. > f27ff2fbf31a01c2f8d98e773bed6cc4298749bd > > -> [core/efl/evas] xxxmaster updated. > > f27ff2fbf31a01c2f8d98e773bed6cc4298749bd > > > > If the title shows any detailed core lib name that was changed, it would > > be better to know what is changed in abstractly. > > > > -Regards, Hermet- > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "David Seikel"<onef...@gmail.com> > > To: <enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>; > > Cc: > > Sent: 2013-02-16 (토) 16:19:58 > > Subject: Re: [E-devel] SVN->Git Migration (was: (no subject)) > > > > On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:42:46 +0900 Jérôme Pinot <ngc891>@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On 02/16/13 15:58, David Seikel wrote: > > > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:56:06 -0200 Rafael Antognolli > > > > <antognolli>@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:12 AM, David Seikel <onefang>@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:53:22 -0200 Bruno Dilly > > > > > > <bdilly>@profusion.mobi> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Daniel Willmann > > > > > >> <d.willmann>@samsung.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > On 13/02/13 00:36, Bruno Dilly wrote: > > > > > >> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Daniel Willmann > > > > > >> >> <d.willmann>@samsung.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> Topic branches: > > > > > >> >>> * In each repository every developer with commit access > > > > > >> >>> will be able to push/update branches in their own namespace > > > > > >> >>> (devs/<name>/*). These branches will allow non-fastforward > > > > > >> >>> updates and no one should expect these to be stable. > > > > > >> >>> * This is a testing ground for developers where new > > > > > >> >>> features can be developed, debugged and shared with fellow > > > > > >> >>> developers. Ideally any new feature would live in its own > > > > > >> >>> branch until it matures and is merged into master. > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> Hey Daniel, > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> It's a nice proposal, but what about master branch > > > > > >> >> permissions ? Every developer would be allowed to push > > > > > >> >> stuff on there (with a flow similar to svn) ? Or we'll try > > > > > >> >> to establish some kind of policy about it (maintainers, > > > > > >> >> review, etc) ? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > As others have already pointed out there seems to be > > > > > >> > consensus that we don't have enough manpower to work with an > > > > > >> > integrator workflow (whether or not that's true I don't > > > > > >> > know). > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ok, I got it. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > What I want to achieve with the topic branches is that > > > > > >> > whoever wants to can maintain an integrator-like workflow. > > > > > >> > You develop your feature in a topic branch, then post a > > > > > >> > request for review/review and test yourself and if > > > > > >> > everything looks good you can merge into master. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Speaking of merging...is there any preference on merge vs. > > > > > >> > rebase? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Lots of small merges can really pollute your history and I > > > > > >> > don't really like them. For larger topic branches I think > > > > > >> > merging makes sense. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I agree with Tom here. > > > > > >> I'm always trying to keep a linear history, focusing on rebases > > > > > >> instead of merges. > > > > > >> We've used this approach on Profusion projects for years and it > > > > > >> worked fine so far. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Maybe it will give you a little bit more work, you'll have to > > > > > >> fix conflicts in the commits it happens instead of only once > > > > > >> in a final merge commit, but it will be nicer to review or look > > > > > >> for issues later, imo. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Using the merge approach, in a project with so many commiters > > > > > >> could lead us to a very confuse history. > > > > > > > > > > > > If the history is confused, then that's what it should show. I > > > > > > really don't like the idea of rewriting history just to make it > > > > > > easier for some people. Sometimes you just need to track down > > > > > > what actually happened, not the convenient lie we tell > > > > > > ourselves is what happened. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think those that a rebased branch history is a lie. Each > > > > > commit will still have the original commit date (if the author > > > > > did not change it). You can use that to know when the feature > > > > > started to be developed. > > > > > > > > It is a lie, it's changing the history to say it was all done one > > > > after the other, when in fact a major feature of distributed > > > > development was used to branch then merge. It was not done in a > > > > linear fashion, thus making it be linear after the fact is not > > > > representing the truth. Sure SOME parts of the commit history are > > > > still the truth, but not all. > > > > > > > > > OK, you lose a way to track the parent commit for that feature > > > > > branch, but on the other hand you earn something important here: > > > > > the knowledge that the commits from that feature branch will > > > > > apply correctly on top of the current state of the tree, without > > > > > a magic merge commit fixing stuff later since some things on the > > > > > tree are not exactly as they seem to be in the diff from this > > > > > commit. The changes that appear in the diff from a given commit > > > > > are exactly what that commit is doing. > > > > > > > > That's what I'm saying, loosing information to make things more > > > > convenient. I'd prefer to err on the side of not loosing > > > > information. But then again, I'm a hoarder. B-) > > > > > > > > > I know that this is not a poll, but I particularly prefer rebased > > > > > branches/commits too. > > > > > > LWN has a neat article about the git rebase thing: > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/328436/ > > > > > > "Thou Shalt Not Rebase Trees With History Visible To Others" > > > > I was easily able to come up with many "rebase is evil" things with a > > web search engine, and it turned up a few "rebase is not evil" things as > > well. > > > > -- > > A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants > > coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel - in partnership with > Geeknet, > > is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly > > thought > > leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials, tech docs, > > whitepapers, evaluation guides, and opinion stories. Check out the most > > recent posts - join the conversation now. > > http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > > enlightenment-devel mailing list > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel - in partnership with > Geeknet, > > is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly > > thought > > leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials, tech docs, > > whitepapers, evaluation guides, and opinion stories. Check out the most > > recent posts - join the conversation now. > > http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > > enlightenment-devel mailing list > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel - in partnership with Geeknet, > is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly > thought > leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials, tech docs, > whitepapers, evaluation guides, and opinion stories. Check out the most > recent posts - join the conversation now. > http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel - in partnership with Geeknet, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials, tech docs, whitepapers, evaluation guides, and opinion stories. Check out the most recent posts - join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
