On 21 June 2012 19:10, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Jürgen Schmidt > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 6/21/12 11:47 AM, Herbert Duerr wrote: >>> On 21.06.2012 10:17, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >>>> We have already introduced the Patch by, Review By .. fields for adding >>>> further information. >>>> >>>> How about logs like >>>> >>>> #### >>>> <issuenumber>:<issue subject line> >>> >>> I agree that the issue subject line is better than nothing, but I prefer >>> that the subject line is about why the change was made. See e.g. the six >>> different changes for issue 118923. Why would anyone want the same >>> change header for each commit when you can have a description instead >>> that matches the change much better? >> >> good point and I agree. >> >> That means we use something like >> >> ### >> <issuenumber> + <1_line_summary/description> >> >> <longer description_on_demand> >> >> <patch_by_on_demand> >> ... >> ### >> >> where >> >> <issuenumber> is >> >> - either the plain <number> + ":" >> - or #<number># >> - or #i<number># >> >> I can live with all but we should agree on one notation. My preference >> is the first and then the second. I don't think we need the lower case >> 'i' anymore. >> >> Older commit messages can be interpreted by knowing the older >> conventions and today we have only one bugtracker. >> > > It may also be possible to change a commit message using svn propedit. > Does anyone know if this is enabled for committer access?
AFAIK, if the login can commit, it can also change the log message; there's no separate karma needed. > See: http://subversion.apache.org/faq.html#change-log-msg > > This could also be useful for older commits that used a different > format for "patch by:" acknowledgements. > > -Rob > > >> Issues from other bugtracker systems should be ideally duplicated in our >> system. The other systems can be public or private bug tracking systems >> and issue numbers of the latter ones don't help anybody. >> >> I would like to hear other opinions of people who actually work with our >> code. >> >> Juergen >> >>> >>> I'm also against using a bare issue number, because having a number that >>> can be reliably parsed by eventual tools (e.g. a tool that updates >>> bugzilla with the revision number, a tool that links the revision commit >>> to the corresponding bug URL, etc.) is no extra effort whereas it opens >>> a whole world of opportunities. I prefer that computers do such work >>> that can be automated because they are rather good at that. >>> >>>> fix:<short description/summary> >>> >>> I like the commit conventions used in the linux kernel. Browse some >>> "commit" links of the kernel shortlog at >>> >>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=shortlog >>> to see some examples. >>> >>>> A common notation used by all would be of course helpful >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Herbert >> >>
