Nowadays probably almost everyone writes commit names that follow our rules.
So it's not so hard to ping somebody to fix the name for the beauty sake of
git's log.
--
Sincerely,
Arseniy Seroka
On 4 May 2016 14:26:45 zimbatm <[email protected]> wrote:
Each contributor has his own motivations and every round were we provide
feedback is another one where we might lose the contributor. He might run
out of energy, or have moved onto other things.
Even after improving the CONTRIBUTING.md, naming of commits is still a
really big friction to getting valid code into nixpkgs. I'm talking of how
commits should be named after a patter like "package: init at x.y.z" or
"package: a.b.c -> x.y.z".
I must admit I don't really know the motivations behind this rule. All I
can think of it that we could theoretically build some tooling and get
pretty cool stats out of it. And that spelunking git history becomes a tiny
bit easier.
Given all that I think we should reconsider that rule. In my opinion if a
contributor submits valid nix code that is useful to the project we should
just be able to merge it and move forward. For me it's more important than
the commit naming rule.
Opinions ?
----------
_______________________________________________
nix-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
_______________________________________________
nix-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
