2010/1/28 Phil Blundell <[email protected]>: > On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 12:00 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: >> Attached is a small hook for updates that are pushed into repo. >> Right now it only checks the first line of the commit and expects >> module: summary > > I'm not really in favour of applying the commit message policy quite > that harshly. The wiki page that you linked to doesn't really seem to > support this kind of check: the actual guidance it gives about checkin > messages is: > > * Have a clear commit message (example): > - The first line of commit is a summary of the changes. > - The first line should start with the name of the recipe the change > affects.
What if a commit is not about a recipe but e.g. about a class file and what if a commit changes multiple recipes ? (i had this one once when eliminating lots of perl native recipes replacing them with BBCLASSEXTEND="native") This was a pain editing already. I think I would have stopped doing it if I had to commit each individual patch > - The rest of the message should give more details on the change as > appropriate. > - Mention the affected bug numbers if appropriate. > - Give credit where credit is due. If you commit someone else's work more > or > less verbatim, you should use git commit --author $mail-of-author. If > pulling > changes from somewhere like Poky or OpenMoko there is no problem with > that > but mention where the changes came from. > - Include a Signed-off-by: line indicating the change has valid certificate > of origin as per the Linux kernel Not sure if we can influence the template that you get with git commit but I would surely like to learn if one way or another I can add a Signed-off-by lne automatically > > ... which is nowhere near as prescriptive as the rule that you seem to > be implementing in your script. Also, the wiki page has an explicit > statement that "[these] rules are not hard fast rules", which would > suggest that even such guidance as it does provide is not intended to be > taken too dogmatically. > > Personally I think that the current situation of the TSC applying > pressure to those people who seem to be chronically unable to write > suitable checkin comments is a perfectly fine way of solving the > problem. Agree FM > > On a technical level, I think you could probably do without the sed > subprocess, and "summary = rev.split(1)" doesn't look quite right > either. > > p. > > > p. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
