On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Saptarshi Mandal <[email protected]> wrote: > Faster release cycles and kernel style commit messages sound great. > > @Ondrej: Your statement indicates that quality of commit messages is > variable, with some > being really good and some being lousy. My point is that, if you will > not commit substandard > code in Sympy I dont see why this principle should not apply to commit > history as well. > I dont mean to nitpick but for the sake of consistency, all commit > messages should adhere > to some sort of a predefined standard. We can either define it > ourselves our simply adopt > best practices of say, kernel or git.
See this: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sympy/XIdt3Y6xK9E/discussion One should try to follow it. But sometimes we had some larger branches, which didn't follow it, and so we had to decide between a) spend lots of time trying to rewrite the git logs (and the branch has nontrivial merges, so it would not be easy to do) b) merge it as it is, with imperfect git logs and move on so we chose b). The solution is to try to write better git logs in the first place. Ondrej -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
