On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_apache.org> wrote:
> Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> Hm, yes, I agree with the "don't write the same thing twice". But
>> perhaps the "general description" above the list of affected files
>> would be a better place:
>
> [...]
>>
>> Though, indeed, we're not required to always have a "general
>> description", and can just start with the affected files, if the
>> change is simple. So ... not sure.
>>
>> That's the thing I'm most uncertain of at the moment: how to fit this
>> scheme precisely into our current log message style, without
>> interfering too much, keeping them as readable as possible for human
>> readers.
>>
>> Maybe a syntax with '@' would be better, like annotations in Java or
>> doxygen. Like:
>
> [...]
>>
>> or as a suffix:
>
> [...]
>>
>> Just thinking out loud here ...
>
> [...]> Hmmmm
>
> Now you're over-thinking it. What you said first, what you use at work, is
> fine. Run with it!
Hehe, maybe :-).
OTOH: Subversion also has a 15+ year old log message style that has
served it well. Before giving this system a try (if we agree we
should), I think we should think carefully how to fit this into the
existing style, without breaking it. It's especially important to get
some buy-in from the people who create the most commits, and that's
certainly not me :-).
At work we have no such strong log message style as SVN. We limit
ourselves to a couple of lines, and every line is *required* to have
such a "tagged" prefix (which is enforced by a pre-commit hook, which
on error gives a reminder of the precise syntax). It also looks a
little different, with square brackets around the different parts:
[U][General][SVN-1111] Fix crash in 'svn co'.
(the issue annotation is optional, the other two are mandatory).
[D][API] Add new api svn__blah() as entry point to the blahing feature.
--
Johan
Received on 2017-12-05 00:05:06 CET