David Deutsch <[email protected]> wrote: >> do you really want to prove your credibility to the world with a >commit >history like this >> do you seriously want to eternalize yourself with this ridiculous >commits? > >Credibility? Eternalize? What? Look - I'm just a FOSS coder and I don't >care how "professional" or whatever I come across. What I do care about >is >an /honest/ track record that can be seen in my github profile, amongst >other things. I would like to help out in other projects as well, >eventually, and I want to be able to offer an honest, cohesive picture >of >how past efforts went about. That's why I showed you what I did for >RedBean >- to give you a direct view into how it went down in another example. >If I >propose help to other projects, I don't think they would care much >about >how "professional" I am, but they would very much appreciate an honest >picture of the process. > >This may seem like a fine point (and I suppose both sides look equally >silly in standing up for something that may appear minor to outsiders) >but >just as you have to stand up for your history, I have to stand up for >mine. >And I'm willing to do that. I have told you, rather clearly, that it is >important to me to have it this way and that it is your choice to weigh >the >options. I consider it a small price to pay, particularly since many of >the >technical issues noted can be solved, sometimes with something as >simple as >a '-w'. More importantly though, I consider the price you would have to >pay >smaller than the one I'm paying. > >I understand that my efforts are appreciated by you and so far, I was >happy >with how the process went, even if I had to make some compromises to >points >that I originally didn't think were debatable. But I think it's not >unreasonable of me to make one or two smaller requirements myself. > >Anyways, I'm getting a sense that this is really mostly about commit >/messages/. Well alright then. What about if I simply rename those >commits? >Would be a bit of rebasing, but from my count, there's only about 15 >commits that lack a good commit message. Would that be an agreeable >compromise? > > >On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Cor Bosman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> David, be reasonable. I think Alec and Thomas have very sensible >> objections to your commits. >> >> As an example: >> >> >> >https://github.com/roundcube/roundcubemail/commit/454f7a93790375e5076324b4733bde15eaf86ab0 >> >> That is a single commit removing 1 line, with a comment of 'yup, >makes >> sense'. What makes sense? I feel im missing some part of a >discussion >> just reading that commit history. >> >> You feel you're not being properly recognised if you submit a PR with >> sensible commits and sensible commit comments? This isnt about >commit >> counting but about substance. The substance is great, but it is >being >> diluted in an avalanche of commits that are all trivial and unclear. >> >> I would much rather see a PR with 1 commit that contain a group of >code >> cleanups, with a commit comment like: "Code cleanup by David >Deutsch". >> >> Anyways, i really hope you'll re-commit your PRs because this >unfortunate >> argument seems solvable. >> >> Cor >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Roundcube Development discussion mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/dev >> > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Roundcube Development discussion mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/dev
What about rebase -i and merge some of the trivial commits into the original ones that where superseded? I did not have a look into the commits but in my past experience, this proved helpful. Also, the prefix sounds like a good way for filtering. Cheers, Raoul -- Raoul Bhatia _______________________________________________ Roundcube Development discussion mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/dev
