On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:57:38PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 08:43:12 -0800 Trevor King wrote: > > The body of the commit message should summarize the consensus > > reached on the mailing list, > > That message is written as part of the patch that is reviewed; it > rarely gets updated with the consensus, unless we suggest / require > people to do that. However, similar to vapier's response, I'd think > introducing such processes feel like unnecessary efforts.
If it doesn't need to get updated, then it probably already started out explaining the consensus ;). > > and these tags are basically standardized thank-you notes crediting > > non-authors who were involved in that process. They don't have to go > > on every patch, but if you want to mention somebody: > > > > Reviewed-by: Random J Developer <ran...@developer.example.org> > > Reviewed-by: Other R Developer <ot...@developer.example.org> > > > > at the end of the commit message is easier to write and read than: > > > > This patch was reviewed Random J Developer > > <ran...@developer.example.org> and Other R Developer > > <ot...@developer.example.org>. > > Exactly: Do we want to spend time on this or not? Do we add everyone > involved? Or do we just add people whom are not on the Portage team? You spend time if you want to spend time and add whoever you feel moved to add. I think the spirit of Alexander's original proposal [1] was “here is a common syntax for crediting collaborators, we might want to use it” not “ye non-conformers will be hounded unto the ends of the Earth”. If you are submitting v2 of a patch, and feel a desire to credit reviewers / testers with this syntax, I think that's considerate of you. If you are committing someone else's patch to master, and want to record the folks who acked it on the list to distribute responsibility, that's fine too. If you want to use another syntax, or not do any of this at all, it's still fine by me ;). However, if a consistent syntax already exists, I see no reason not to use it when it suits your purpose. > Unless we intend to introduce this for statistics, although I think > that prior annotation history missing as well as people that will > casually forgot to add these annotations will make the statistics a > misrepresentation. I agree that statistics based on these tags are not meaningful. Cheers, Trevor [1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/3948 -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
