o.jp<mailto:ajisa...@oss.nttdata.co.jp>]
Sent: 08 November 2016 10:05
To: Allen Wittenauer; Ravi Prakash
Cc: Daniel Templeton; Brahma Reddy Battula;
common-dev@hadoop.apache.org<mailto:common-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Commit log Pattern Unification
In more detail, I
ngs easier for
> committer..?
>
>
>
> Regards
> Brahma Reddy Battula
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Akira Ajisaka [mailto:ajisa...@oss.nttdata.co.jp]
> Sent: 08 November 2016 10:05
> To: Allen Wittenauer; Ravi Prakash
> Cc: Daniel Templeton; Brahma
: Allen Wittenauer; Ravi Prakash
Cc: Daniel Templeton; Brahma Reddy Battula; common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Commit log Pattern Unification
In more detail, I'm +1 for requiring 'git format-patch' and commit with
'dev-support/bin/smart-apply-patch --committer&
In more detail, I'm +1 for requiring 'git format-patch' and commit with
'dev-support/bin/smart-apply-patch --committer', as well as Apache Yetus.
That way committers can use signed-off feature and don't need to add
'contributed by ...' to commit message by hand.
Thanks,
Akira
On 11/8/16 04:3
Part of why I asked this question is because it's hard to get consistent
log messages until they can be enforced via precommit. We already have the
issue of typo'd or forgotten JIRA numbers in commit messages, and that'd
happen for attribution messages as well.
There's also always significant dedu
> On Nov 7, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Ravi Prakash wrote:
>
> I have a preference for d) Contributed by XXX.
>
> Wouldn't signed-off require the commit to come from the contributor? What
> about people who submit patch files?
If the patches are built with 'git format-patch', no.
In
And sometimes there are multiple contributors, so it becomes Contributed by
XX1, XX2 and XX3.
I guess having the information in git logs makes for easy grepping, awking
and counting ;-)
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Andrew Wang
wrote:
> I've always done d), but isn't this information capture
I've always done d), but isn't this information captured in JIRA anyway?
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Ravi Prakash wrote:
> I have a preference for d) Contributed by XXX.
>
> Wouldn't signed-off require the commit to come from the contributor? What
> about people who submit patch files? I th
I have a preference for d) Contributed by XXX.
Wouldn't signed-off require the commit to come from the contributor? What
about people who submit patch files? I thought that was still the modus
operandi, no?
On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Daniel Templeton
wrote:
> On 11/6/16 8:01 PM, Daniel Tem
On 11/6/16 8:01 PM, Daniel Templeton wrote:
It's also how the committer is included in the log by git.
OK, git actually shows name and email in the log. It shows the username
in the annotations in NetBeans, which is what I was thinking of. :)
Daniel
On 11/5/16 1:36 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula wrote:
When we look at current git log,commit message patters are like following..
I feel, we should have unified one. Might not be very important,but it will be
better have unified one.
a).(Contributed by XXX via YYY)
b). (XXX via YYY)
c). Cont
I'm +1 for using Git "Signed-off-by" feature.
Regards,
Akira
On 11/5/16 17:36, Brahma Reddy Battula wrote:
Hi All,
When we look at current git log,commit message patters are like following..
I feel, we should have unified one. Might not be very important,but it will be
better have unified o
Hi All,
When we look at current git log,commit message patters are like following..
I feel, we should have unified one. Might not be very important,but it will be
better have unified one.
a).(Contributed by XXX via YYY)
b). (XXX via YYY)
c). Contributed by XXX
d). Contributed by XXX.
13 matches
Mail list logo
