On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:26:47AM -0700, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> > -------Original Message-------
> > From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.co.il>
> > Subject: Re: Jens, please try to get more peer review
> > Sent: 29 May '08 10:20
> > Stefan Sperling wrote on Thu, 29 May 2008 at 17:49 +0200:
> > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 04:25:00PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
> > > > Most of the time because the 'obvious fix'. If there was any doubt
> > > > I also wrote to this list. I also just forgot adding this flag at
> > > > least once.
> > >
> > > OK. Maybe we should require obvious fixes to be designated as such?
> > > Such as: "Obvious fix: Remove trailing whitespace"
> > >
> > > This would make it more obvious that the obvious fix rule was applied.
> > > Should we update HACKING accordingly?
> > >
> > Maybe "Approved by: obvious fix".
> That may confuse the contribulyzer. I think just prefacing the log
> message with "Obvious fix", much the same way people sometimes do with
> work on branches, would be fine. I really don't care how it's done,
> but being explicit about the obvious fix rule being invoked would be a
> good thing.
Should I update HACKING accordingly?
--- www/hacking.html (revision 31532)
+++ www/hacking.html (working copy)
@@ -2146,6 +2146,13 @@ may be — in the web pages, API doc
comments, commit messages, etc. We rely on the committer's judgement
to determine what is "obvious"; if you're not sure, just ask.</p>
+<p>Whenever you are invoking the "obvious fix" rule, please say so in
+the log message of your commit. For example:</p>
+ www/hacking.html: Obvious fix: Kill some typos.
Received on 2008-05-30 13:59:54 CEST
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored