On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:52 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> There has been a request in the FOSDEM developers meeting that
> committers use a more consistent format for commit messages.  This is
> the format I use:
>         -- email subject limit -----------------------------------------
>         -- gitweb summary limit --------------------------
>         Report by
>         Patch by
>         Reviewed by
>         Backpatch through
> The dashed lines are used to specify a target length for the summary
> line and are automatically removed before the commit message is posted.

One of the things I like about the current free-form approach is that
you can indicate nuances, like:

Person X reviewed an earlier version of this patch that was a lot
different than this one.
Person X reviewed this patch but didn't totally endorse it.
Person X wrote the documentation for the patch, but none of the code.
Person X wrote the vast bulk of this patch, even though there are some
other authors.

Should I just abandon the idea of trying to capture those details, or
does this format contemplate a way to include them?

(Also an important question: Has Tom agreed to use this new format?
Because I think that anything the rest of agree on that he's not
prepared to endorse is not going to have much value.)

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