llvm dev - Mar 2015 - [LLVMdev] [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.


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

----- 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

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