On 17 Jul 2014, at 16:19, Frank Loeffler <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:21:46PM +0200, Bruno Coutinho Mundim wrote: >> They look good to me. Should we distribute a commit-msg hook >> for the client to enforce the policy "Thorn:" in the commit >> messages? > > 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.
The reason for needing the "thorn:" prefix on the merged repositories is that the original commit message would have been written under the assumption that the reader knew which thorn was being modified, since there was just that thorn in the repository. With a merged repository, a such a message would not have that context, and would therefore convey less information. Hence we add the extra information for these messages. For the future, people should just write a commit message which makes sense in the context of the arrangement repository. If the commit just touches a single thorn, it's logical to use such a prefix, so that the reader gets some context for the change. I don't think it's necessary to enforce or even check this; it's just a useful convention. -- Ian Hinder http://numrel.aei.mpg.de/people/hinder
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users
