I don't believe in automated mechanisms. Carpet has been using this policy for a long time. Many people use it without being told. Others don't -- they either don't care, or they can't be bothered because they have other things in mind when creating a commit, or they simply don't believe in reading commit messages.
And then, there is the more important issue of knowing how to write a good commit message. Some people document their changes in commit messages (because they didn't write comments), others simply describe the changes in detail (as opposed to giving a high-level overview). Some use commit messages as forum to announce new features, or to explain how to use a new feature. If we truly want to change this, then we should - have a discussion on how we would like commit message to read - write this up on a brief, simple wiki page - refuse patches if the commit message is far below our standards (e.g. is offensive, or "forgets" to mention a major issue) To make this work, we need patches that are submitted together with submit messages. That is, people would need to publish their commits (e.g. in a Bitbucket clone), and a maintainer pulls them. -erik On Jul 17, 2014, at 15:31 , Bruno Coutinho Mundim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/17/2014 04:35 PM, Barry Wardell wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Frank Loeffler <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> We could provide one. We cannot enforce people installing it. >>> >>>> and on top of that set up the server to reject unformatted messages? >>> >>> That is probably the better option. Although I would only see it as help >>> to "not forget about it", not an enforcement really (although >>> technically it is the same). We cannot disallow anything else than thorn >>> names before the ":" (we might have commit touching multiple thorns), so >>> we cannot technically prevent something like "somewhere: changed >>> something". But we don't need to technically enforce everything anyway. >> >> >> This is a good point. While it seems like a good general guideline to have >> the thorn name as a prefix in any commit message, I'm not convinced it is a >> good idea to strictly enforce it. For example, what about commits that >> modify several thorns at once? >> > > Then we could prefix with "Arrangement:". In any case I don't have > strong feelings about it. It was just a suggestion to make the commit > messages neater and motivate people to apply localized, atomic commits > instead. > > Cheers, > Bruno. > >> Carpet has a policy like this; in general commit messages are prefixed by >> the thorn name, but occasionally there will be a message which changes many >> thorns at once and doesn't adhere to this convention. >> > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users -- Erik Schnetter <[email protected]> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/eschnetter/ My email is as private as my paper mail. I therefore support encrypting and signing email messages. Get my PGP key from http://pgp.mit.edu/.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users
