The word [MINOR] is very coarse-grained to me, as Stamatis mentions above, it may contains small improvements to javadoc, site, test, error message, method/variable name, etc. And it is subjective to the author/committer whether a PR should be minor.
Looking at the git history, I found it useful when a commit without Jira id starts with "Site:", "Refactor:", "Code style:", "Lint". Maybe we can add more useful prefixes for common small changes, such as "Mailmap: ", "Javadoc: ", "Typo:". For others which are not very common small changes, just a clear/concise commit message without any prefix is good enough. Anyway, we'd better reach an agreement when we can omit Jira id and consider a PR is small. Stamatis Zampetakis <zabe...@gmail.com> 于2024年1月3日周三 18:27写道： > > The presence of the "minor" keyword in the commit summary is a bit > redundant. I would argue that if the message is precise enough the > person reading it can infer it is minor or not. > > Moreover, the minor classification is subjective. Some people consider > minor things that do not change code at all. Others consider minor > things that don't touch production code. The addition of tests and > fixing a broken build is also considered minor by few people. All > these examples are taken from the current commits which landed in > Calcite. > > For the reasons above, I feel that we don't really need to include > "minor" in the commit summary but don't feel very strongly about it > anyways. > > In the past we agreed that if a change is trivial/minor we don't need > a JIRA id. Although, this is convenient for getting this committed > faster without too much hassle it has some drawbacks. > > If at some point in the future we want to attach more information to a > particular commit, this is not possible since we cannot modify the git > history. When there is a JIRA we can always add new comments and > clarifications there even if the ticket is resolved. > > Having a JIRA id is also a convenient way and readable way for > referring to particular commits. The commit hash can be used to > identify a commit in Apache main branch but if the same commit is > backported to other forks/branches using the hash becomes more > cumbersome. This is especially useful in downstream projects and forks > for tracking that a specific change landed in various branches. > > Maybe in the future we should reconsider the optionality of the JIRA > id in the commit summary. If this happens then [CALCITE-XXXXX][MINOR] > would start getting overly long so this may be another argument > against including "minor" in the message. > > Best, > Stamatis > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 10:25 AM Ran Tao <chucheng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > This format most likely comes from other open source projects. > > If calcite has its own specifications, such as how to set the title for PRs > > that do not require a jira name, > > IMHO, it can be introduced in the contribution doc. > > Commiters can also review PRs according to this specification. > > > > Best Regards, > > Ran Tao > > > > > > Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.invalid> 于2024年1月3日周三 16:11写道： > > > > > Perhaps the square bracket convention ? > > > If the ticket starts with CALICITE-\d+ , then make sure that the JIRA > > > ticket id is between brackets. > > > > > > Also check for Gerrit Change IDs which are often added automatically, and > > > a > > > paint to remove. > > > > > > Istvan > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 10:50 PM Tanner Clary <tannercl...@google.com > > > .invalid> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I like the [MINOR] prefix because it makes it easy to identify simple > > > > commits (via grep or ctrl+f), the same way [CALCITE-1234] makes it easy > > > to > > > > find commits related to [CALCITE-1234]. I also like that it maintains > > > > the > > > > "[...]" styling at the beginning of the commit message. > > > > > > > > Neither of these reasons is strong enough for me to say I oppose, just > > > some > > > > minor (heh) counter-arguments. > > > > > > > > -Tanner > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 1:05 PM Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote: “A foolish consistency is the > > > > > hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers > > > > > and divines." > > > > > > > > > > That said, people tend to bring conventions from other projects to > > > > > Calcite, and we end up with chaos. By which I mean, lots of > > > > > self-expression, but no standards, and therefore commit messages that > > > > > have lower information content, and more work for the release manager > > > > > coercing them into a consistent change log. > > > > > > > > > > In Calcite we have not used '[MINOR]' as a prefix to minor commits. If > > > > > it is minor, it doesn't need a jira case, and doesn't need a prefix. > > > > > But a few commits with [MINOR] crept in, starting about a year ago. > > > > > Once or twice, I asked people to remove them, but the PRs had already > > > > > been merged. > > > > > > > > > > Any objections if I add a lint rule to fail the build if the commit > > > > > message contains [MINOR]? > > > > > > > > > > While I'm there, any other standards we should enforce? > > > > > > > > > > Julian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer > > > *Email*: st...@cloudera.com > > > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com> > > > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/> > > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image: > > > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera > > > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera> > > > ------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------ > > > -- Best, Benchao Li
