similar to: [LLVMdev] Commit message policy?

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > +1 for a having a short leading sentence followed by a blank line. This is > always the email subject, so plan accordingly. > > IMO the rest doesn't matter and isn't worth codifying. > IMO, none of this is worth codifying really... We could certainly have a little guide for how to write

On 25 September 2014 00:03, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > I tend to follow something like that anyway so I think it's a good > idea, but if anything I'd prefer a longer title line than the body. > Particularly with the prefixes we tend to put in there, 50 chars is > hardly anything. I only mentioned 50-col because that's what Vim helps me do

On 6 March 2015 at 18:33, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Hi Renato, > > Did anything ever happen with this? Nope. People didn't want to commit to limits but still have a guideline. I'm of the view that guidelines are meant to be ignored. Do you want to continue pushing this? cheers, --renato

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

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

On 6 March 2015 at 20:59, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > I think the only guideline we should have is that the first line should be > written as though it is an email subject, because it gets used for that. If > you write a long first line, then you get a long subject, and it looks > silly. If people want to embarrass themselves with strangely formatted > email,

That seems mostly reasonable. I'd try to make it more concise, though. The coding standards and developer policy docs should be short. +Commit message +-------------- + +Although we don't enforce the format of commit messages, there are general +guidelines that will help review, search in logs, email formatting and so on. +Mostly, the rules that apply are similar to other git

Hi, I haven't got any comments to add that haven't already been discussed but I thought it would be worth mentioning that Phabricator's documentation has a fairly good section on good commit messages at https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabflavor/article/writing_reviewable_code/#write-sensible-commit-me. > -----Original Message----- > From: cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu

> On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:36 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: >> On 6 March 2015 at 20:59, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >>> I think the only guideline we should have is that the first line should be >>> written as though it is an email

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at google.com> > To: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Clang Dev" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 2:59:54 PM > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev]

Second draft, being less strict. I kept the "body align to 80 col" because I say "should", not "must", and because we already have the same policy for code and documents. cheers, --renato -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: commit-msg-policy.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 2021 bytes Desc: not available URL:

> On Mar 6, 2015, at 4:08 PM, Robinson, Paul <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On >> Behalf Of Mehdi Amini >> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 1:49 PM >> To: Davide Italiano >> Cc: Clang Dev; LLVM Dev >> Subject: Re:

Gentle ping? On 11 March 2015 at 16:12, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > If everyone's happy, I'll commit the change and see where we go from then, ok? > > cheers, > --renato

Hi John, Chandler, I completely agree. Cheers, Renato On 25 Sep 2014 17:39, "John Criswell" <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Two quick comments: > > 1) Don't suggest that titles be 70 characters but that 80 is okay. Just > say they should be at 70 characters and leave it at that. > > 2) +1 for Chandler's comment that what is really

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Bill Kelly via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: >> On 13 October 2015 at 17:16, Kuperstein, Michael M via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> The FreeBSD CoC is, IMHO, much better in this respect ( https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html ).

I don't think we should mention phabricator at all. I only mention attribution because that's legally important. Cheers, Renato On 8 Mar 2015 16:31, "Kuperstein, Michael M" <michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Renato, > > I know this is nitpicking, but do we want to specify the order between > "Patch By" and "Differential

Re-cap, after reviews. Main changes: * Making it clear that the "active community" behaviour is expected to continue throughout the target's lifetime. * Making it clear that only a reduced set of violation will be allowed in the experimental phase, providing the maintainers are taking the cost to move it to full compliance. * Trust, but verify: If the target's community

On 15 March 2015 at 16:31, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > I don't want to code when to use them. But it makes sense to say, "If you want to include a title tag, do it like this...". I'm ok with that. So, do we have consensus? 1. Don't require, but recommend using [] for tags. 2. Don't specify attribution more than just "patch by Foo." and

On 13 October 2015 at 17:16, Kuperstein, Michael M via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The FreeBSD CoC is, IMHO, much better in this respect ( https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html ). Nice! This is so succinct and beautiful! It doesn't need an overseeing foundation to take opaque decisions, and focus on what's really important: the code. I

On 15 March 2015 at 20:22, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Can you post the entire revised diff that you want to include? Is it Diff 21913 on Phab? If so, LGTM. Hi Chris, Here's the final version: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8197 cheers, --renato