On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Nathan Wagner <nw...@hydaspes.if.org> wrote:
> Two, I think any attempt to tell the developers and committers that they
> need to change their workflow to adapt to some system is bound to fail,
> so, I have asked, just what changed would you all be willing to actually
> *do*?  Tom Lane is pretty good at noting a bug number in his commit
> messages, for example.  Would he be willing to modify that slightly to
> make it easier to machine parse?  Would you be willing to add a bug
> number to your commit messages?  I'm not asking for guarantees.
> Actually I'm not really asking for anything, I'm just trying to figure
> out what the parameters of a solution might be.  If the answer to that
> is "no, I'm not willing to change anything at all", that's fine, it just
> colors what might be done and how much automation I or someone else
> might be able to write.

I'd personally be willing to put machine-parseable metadata into my
commit messages provided that:

1. I'm not the only one doing it - i.e. at least 3 or 4
moderately-frequent committers are all doing it consistently and all
using the same format.  If Tom buys into it, that's a big plus.

2. Adding the necessary metadata to a commit can be reasonably
expected to take no more than 2 minutes in typical cases (preferably

3. Adding the metadata doesn't cause lines > 70 characters.  I am not
a fan of the "Discussion: Message-ID-Here" format which some
committers have begun using, sometimes with just the message ID and
sometimes with the full URL, because anything which causes horizontal
scrolling makes me sad.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to