As a core (and former PTL) I just ignored commit message -1s unless there is something majorly wrong (no bug id where one is needed, etc).
I appreciate well formatted commits, but can we let this one go? This discussion is so far into the meta-bike-shedding (bike shedding about bike shedding commit messages) ... If a commit message is *that* bad a -1 (or just fixing it?) Might be worth it. However, if a commit isn't missing key info (bug id? Bp? Etc) and isn't one long incredibly unbroken sentence moving from topic to topic, there isn't a good reason to block the review. It is not worth having a bot -1 bad commits or even having gerrit muck with them. Let's do the job of the reviewer and actually review code instead of going crazy with commit messages. Sent via mobile > On Sep 26, 2015, at 21:19, Ian Wells <ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk> wrote: > > Can I ask a different question - could we reject a few simple-to-check things > on the push, like bad commit messages? For things that take 2 seconds to fix > and do make people's lives better, it's not that they're rejected, it's that > the whole rejection cycle via gerrit review (push/wait for tests to run/check > website/swear/find change/fix/push again) is out of proportion to the effort > taken to fix it. > > It seems here that there's benefit to 72 line messages - not that everyone > sees that benefit, but it is present - but it doesn't outweigh the current > cost. > -- > Ian. > > >> On 25 September 2015 at 12:02, Jeremy Stanley <fu...@yuggoth.org> wrote: >> On 2015-09-25 16:15:15 +0000 (+0000), Fox, Kevin M wrote: >> > Another option... why are we wasting time on something that a >> > computer can handle? Why not just let the line length be infinite >> > in the commit message and have gerrit wrap it to <insert random >> > number here> length lines on merge? >> >> The commit message content (including whitespace/formatting) is part >> of the data fed into the hash algorithm to generate the commit >> identifier. If Gerrit changed the commit message at upload, that >> would alter the Git SHA compared to your local copy of the same >> commit. This quickly goes down a Git madness rabbit hole (not the >> least of which is that it would completely break signed commits). >> -- >> Jeremy Stanley >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
