Daniel Kinzler <dan...@brightbyte.de> wrote: >> In my opinion, if the typo is trivial (f.e. someone typed "fo" instead of >> "of"), >> there is no need to -1 the commit, however if the typo pertains to a crucial >> element of the commit (f.e. someone typed "fixed wkidata bug") perhaps it >> should, since otherwise people who search through commit messages won't be >> able >> to find commits that contain word "wikidata".
> Ok, full text search might be an argument in some cases (does that even work > on > gerrit?). It works in Git, for example with "git log --grep". I do think that fixing typos should be preferred to preserving typos for eternity, and -1 is better than nothing, but up- loading a new changeset is how it should be done. > But in that regard, wouldn't it be much more important to enforce (bug 12345) > links to bugzilla by giving a -1 to commits that don't have them (though they > clearly have, or should have, a bug report?) > I'm still in favor of requiring every tag line to contain either (bug nnnnn) > or > (minor), so people are reminded that bugs should be filed and linked for > anything that is not trivial. That's not what I want to discuss here - it just > strikes me as much more relevant than typos, yet people don't seem to be too > keen to enforce that. I cannot follow that line of thought at all. The "tag line" is rather short and should give the reader a summary of what the commit is about when browsing through a list of commits. Reserving part of that for a bug number would only be useful if the reader could associate the underlying issue by the number, but apart from bug #1 and a few (other) tracking bugs noone will be able to do so, and those bugs will (un- fortunately) never be closed. Is there another software project that uses the summary line in a similar way to MediaWiki? Tim _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
