> -----Original Message----- > From: James Pic [mailto:james...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, 9 April 2011 2:03 AM > To: zeta-dev@incubator.apache.org > Cc: Jerome Renard; Patrick ALLAERT > Subject: Re: [zeta-dev] Proposal: Commit guidelines >
<snip> > That said, I agree that it would be convenient that every commit related to an > issue would contain the issue number in its message. This statement contradicts the one below. > > Finally, note that Tobias wrote the actual standards that were already used > and have been proven to work. It is not necessary to bloat them anyway. This whole thread started because the 'actual standards' state to only mention the Issue Number in the final commit... "...+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..." As mentioned before, knowing which is really the last commit to close an issue is a hard one, and having many commits not tied to an issue number makes people wonder what issue it is for. Jira itself keeps track of commits for a particular issue, but only if the commit has the issue number mentioned in the commit message. See for example: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZETACOMP-8?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.ext.subversion%3Asubversion-commits-tabpanel#issue-tabs and most other projects are doing the same thing, i.e. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-1224?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.ext.subversion%3Asubversion-commits-tabpanel#issue-tabs https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-516?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.ext.subversion%3Asubversion-commits-tabpanel#issue-tabs etc etc... for that helpful feature alone it is worth the extra few characters per commit message. Gav... > > Cheers > > James
