Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [oe] Git commit process question.
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 02:39, Khem Raj wrote: > Definitely, and I agree that we should put relevant information in > commits, usually > the information about side effects if any, links to changelog etc. are > useful too > however, we should not enforce a behavior which could result in > redundancy as explained To be honest, researching changelogs and summarizing them into commit messages is feasible if you maintain maybe three recipes. When you maintain thirty, it becomes a burden, and I am not going to take that burden. There's already enough work in getting the upgrade into working shape, work that largely goes unnoticed and unappreciated and does not require finding and reading upstream changelogs. HOWEVER. I think we could start putting links to changelogs into the recipes themselves. If it's a webpage, we can use templating to substitute version numbers, if it's a file in the source tree, we can also come up with a format for that. Then it's a simple extension to e.g. devtool to show that changelog via less or a browser. Alex -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [oe] Git commit process question.
On 4/3/19 3:38 AM, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > Just to make clear, the AUH workflow does require the maintainer to > sign off and edit a commit message via 'git commit -s --reset-author > --amend' for every commit, Not sure if this a requirement anymore. Most of my packages got updated by other folks this time around. Hard to say if the AUH played a part or are folks now using the devtool check. > so AUH does not get in the way of useful > commit messages. There was talk of using the AUH to fast track updates that pass the process so in that case the message would be whatever the AUH provides - armin > > Alex > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 12:31, Burton, Ross wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 20:46, Tom Rini wrote: >> pr The kernel does not have "upgrade foo to the latest upstream version" commits. With the Automatic Upgrade Helper this is a semi-automatic task, and most of the time there is no specific motivation other than upgrading to the latest upstream version. >>> But since that's just filling in a template the body can also be a >>> template perhaps with useful AUH data (run at ... by ... ?) ? >> Apart from making the commit message longer what does this achieve? >> The commit already has a timestamp and author. >> >> Ross >> -- >> ___ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> openembedded-c...@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [oe] Git commit process question.
Just to make clear, the AUH workflow does require the maintainer to sign off and edit a commit message via 'git commit -s --reset-author --amend' for every commit, so AUH does not get in the way of useful commit messages. Alex On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 12:31, Burton, Ross wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 20:46, Tom Rini wrote: > > > The kernel does not have "upgrade foo to the latest upstream version" > > > commits. > > > > > > With the Automatic Upgrade Helper this is a semi-automatic task, and > > > most of the time there is no specific motivation other than upgrading > > > to the latest upstream version. > > > > But since that's just filling in a template the body can also be a > > template perhaps with useful AUH data (run at ... by ... ?) ? > > Apart from making the commit message longer what does this achieve? > The commit already has a timestamp and author. > > Ross > -- > ___ > Openembedded-core mailing list > openembedded-c...@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
