On 20/02/14 11:23, Cedric BAIL wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Tom Hacohen <tom.haco...@samsung.com> wrote: >> On 20/02/14 10:57, Stefan Schmidt wrote: >>> Hello. >>> >>> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 19:41, Cedric BAIL wrote: >>>> >>>> I agree with you here, the short summary could really get better with >>>> some policy. Maybe we could agree on a format and make sure that git >>>> wont accept a commit that doesn't follow those rules ? >>> >>> I would like to avoid such dragonic measures if possible. Especially >>> here you could force the format but not enforce a good message. e.g. >>> >>> efl: Fix calculation @fix @backport >>> >>> Something like this would pass a fictive server hook to enforce it but >>> would still be useless. >>> >>> It would be way better if people would try hard to improve their >>> commits in this area and make a bit more social pressure like letting >>> TAsn loose again to rant about commit messages. :) >> >> I'm always loose, just a bit distracted recently. :P >> >> Btw, @backport is implied by @fix. I.e only commits that should be >> backported are marked as @fix. The rest should not, as it's not of >> interest to the news file or anything, and is just "development". >> >> I'm with stefan though, I'm against using tech measures to solve this >> social issue. >> >> The way I see it, there are 2 ways to go at it: >> 1. Bad cop: Warn repeating offenders, and remove commit access if they >> fail to improve. Commit messages are an important part of sw dev. If >> people can't do that, we can't trust them with commit access. >> 2. Good cop: You get a free pass to ignore commits that do not pass your >> quality control when preparing the news/release info and etc. >> Essentially making it so offenders to get credit for their fixes/features. >> >> I prefer the second option, but the first 1 is also valid. > > Automated even with a light check (enforcing length and a format that > at least specify on what they are working) is enough to make people > think about what they are writing. Having a human harass people to get > it right, is just going to direct the frustration to a real human > instead of against a stupid machine that wont mind. >
Yeah, but my frustration will be tunnelled back towards the offenders. While a machine forgives and forgets, I hold grudges and will hunt them forever. ;P Seriously though, a machine can only do as much. I think it's bound to frustrate the non-offenders more than the offenders with glitches and etc. Also, not all commits need a proper commit message. "Updated TODO". "Updated .gitignore" And a lot of other cases, do not warrant a verbose commit message. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls. Read the Whitepaper. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121054471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
