Renato Golin
2015-Mar-14 19:57 UTC
[LLVMdev] Bikeshedding commit message policy - Round 3 - Fight!
Folks, On review http://reviews.llvm.org/D8197, we're basically down to two bikeshedding issues: 1. Title tags Some people use "[CSE] Change blah", others use "CSE: Change blah". I hadn't put anything regarding tags because not everyone use it and when they do, it's slightly different. I personally don't think it's a reason to argue about, so I'm in favour of removing the comment altogether and let people do what they feel is best for their own commits. Anyone feel strongly about this? I vote for removing the paragraph and let people realise they can do that by looking at the past commit messages. 2. Attribution The dev policy (http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#attribution-of-changes) gives an example of how to do it: “patch contributed by J. Random Hacker!”. I personally took that as a guideline, not a rule, and never really used the exclamation mark, nor I say "contributed", and that seems what most people do, too. Since having them differently on both places will bring people to bike shed, I think we need to stick to one, or be explicitly vague about it. People have scripts that rely on that, and since it seems to be working, I'm pretty sure it *doesn't* rely on the word "contributed" not it relies on the exclamation mark. I'm strongly in favour of not requiring any of it. Anyone feels that strongly about "contributed" or the exclamation mark? I see three solutions here: 1. We stand by that exact phrase, since it's "kosher". I'm against it. 2. We just say that a line that contains the words "patch", "by", "<name><punctuation>" will be parsed by attribution. I'm against it, as this will start another bike shed on the exact regular expression to use. Not to mention this will be an internationalisation and abbreviation hell. 3. We say "Patch by Foo Bar." and let people be reasonably creative. I vote for this one. cheers, --renato
Hal Finkel
2015-Mar-15 15:06 UTC
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Bikeshedding commit message policy - Round 3 - Fight!
----- Original Message -----> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> > To: "LLVM Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Clang Dev" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 2:57:20 PM > Subject: [cfe-dev] Bikeshedding commit message policy - Round 3 - Fight! > > Folks, > > On review http://reviews.llvm.org/D8197, we're basically down to two > bikeshedding issues: > > 1. Title tags > > Some people use "[CSE] Change blah", others use "CSE: Change blah". I > hadn't put anything regarding tags because not everyone use it and > when they do, it's slightly different. I personally don't think it's > a > reason to argue about, so I'm in favour of removing the comment > altogether and let people do what they feel is best for their own > commits. > > Anyone feel strongly about this? I vote for removing the paragraph > and > let people realise they can do that by looking at the past commit > messages.I used to use CSE:, but have now switched to using [CSE] because that seems to be the prevailing convention (and is somewhat more visually distinctive). I think it makes sense to codify that convention, but not to require them. Sometimes, there is nothing appropriate to use. Sometimes, the first or second word of the commit message is naturally the same as what the title tag would be, and so including the title tag seems redundant.> > > 2. Attribution > > The dev policy > (http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#attribution-of-changes) > gives an example of how to do it: “patch contributed by J. Random > Hacker!”. I personally took that as a guideline, not a rule, and > never > really used the exclamation mark, nor I say "contributed", and that > seems what most people do, too. Since having them differently on both > places will bring people to bike shed, I think we need to stick to > one, or be explicitly vague about it. > > People have scripts that rely on that, and since it seems to be > working, I'm pretty sure it *doesn't* rely on the word "contributed" > not it relies on the exclamation mark. I'm strongly in favour of not > requiring any of it. > > Anyone feels that strongly about "contributed" or the exclamation > mark? > > I see three solutions here: > > 1. We stand by that exact phrase, since it's "kosher". I'm against > it. > > 2. We just say that a line that contains the words "patch", "by", > "<name><punctuation>" will be parsed by attribution. I'm against it, > as this will start another bike shed on the exact regular expression > to use. Not to mention this will be an internationalisation and > abbreviation hell. > > 3. We say "Patch by Foo Bar." and let people be reasonably creative. > I > vote for this one.I agree. I think the important part is that the name appear in an obvious context. That way, if I search my Inbox for the name, the relevant commit will appear, and it will be obvious why without reading a lot of text. -Hal> > cheers, > --renato > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >-- Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory
Renato Golin
2015-Mar-15 15:48 UTC
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Bikeshedding commit message policy - Round 3 - Fight!
On 15 March 2015 at 15:06, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:> I used to use CSE:, but have now switched to using [CSE] because that seems to be the prevailing convention (and is somewhat more visually distinctive). I think it makes sense to codify that convention, but not to require them. Sometimes, there is nothing appropriate to use. Sometimes, the first or second word of the commit message is naturally the same as what the title tag would be, and so including the title tag seems redundant.I agree with you that [CSE] is the most visually striking, but I wonder how much do we want to code when to use them. There will always be arguments to all sides, and I think this is not a topic important enough for us to make it official. See how the exclamation mark became self important on the attribution and you'll see what I mean. I think common sense will always prevail if we don't try to push too many standards. cheers, --renato
Apparently Analagous Threads
- [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Bikeshedding commit message policy - Round 3 - Fight!
- [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Bikeshedding commit message policy - Round 3 - Fight!
- [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Bikeshedding commit message policy - Round 3 - Fight!
- Help downlading wine
- I offer a reward of USD$50 + VGA card Giveaway to anyone who can solve my Xen VGA Passthrough Problem