Hi Patrick, On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Patrick ALLAERT <patrick.alla...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/4/1 Tobias Schlitt <tob...@schlitt.info>: >> Hi, >> >> I wrote down our commit guidelines. Please review them shortly, before I >> commit: >> >> http://files.schlitt.info/tmp/commit_guidelines.patch > > Good work Toby! > > I have however a remark regarding: > > +However, larger features or bug fixes, should be split them into smaller > +commits. In this case, the issue number should only occur in the final > commit, > +which closes the issue. > > I think having the issue number on the latest commit only might be a > problem for different reasons: > 1. While looking at a commit mentioning an issue ID, you have no clue > whether other commits are required or not to fix that specific issue. > 2. In the case a commit fixing a bug has to be reverted for whatever > the reason, the one which will definitely resolve the problem will > also mention that issue which is not consistent to the guidelines. > 3. In the case a bug issue is reopened, we might have the same problem as in > 2. >
I already thought about this problem but to be honnest I never found an acceptable solution. The only "solution" I came up with is to write commit log message like this: - Fixed #1234321 part 1 : bla bla bla bla That way you actually now which commits are related to which issue but I really do not like this solution at all. The ideal solution would be to create a new branch named "issue-XXX" which contain as many commits as required and then push/merge the branch when the issue/feature is fixed/implemented. But that requires Git (or Mercurial) and ASF only provides SVN (Git is only a read only mirror). :) -- Jérôme Renard http://39web.fr | http://jrenard.info | http://twitter.com/jeromerenard
