I'm done here, we can move on. It seems lazy consensus apply anyway.
Jacques
Le 11/09/2016 à 11:48, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
I think that it doesn't make much of a difference whether it's past or
present or whatever as long as it remains consistent.
Consistency will make us all familiar with the process and it's easy to
understand what everybody's doing and you can automate things.
So Jacques since you already casted your opinion and approval it would be
great to just finalize this issue and move forward, we all need to adjust
our style a little bit myself included.
On Sep 11, 2016 12:31 PM, "Michael Brohl" <michael.br...@ecomify.de> wrote:
No, I don't need certain phrases, they should only be unified :-)
But it would save a lot of time to speak out early in the discussion
instead of agreeing and then acting differently.
I think it's not too much work for every single committer to slightly
change his commit messages to a unified format but it will gain much in
readability and save me lots of stupid work to get the development details
together, believe me.
Thanks for your cooperation,
Michael
Am 11.09.16 um 11:11 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
Michael,
Simple: do you need Improved instead of Improves for your parsing?
If not I will keep my slightly different preferences. If yes we can
discuss more (use regexp, etc.)
Thanks
Jacques
Le 11/09/2016 à 10:43, Michael Brohl a écrit :
Jacques,
a UNIFIED commit message format is not unified if every committer uses
his personal preferences. That's the state we already have and I wanted to
change that.
I thought I have laid out my intentions pretty clear and you gave me no
doubt about it when you wrote
"I think it's a good idea to normalize our commits comments and your
proposition seems good to me Jacopo. Now, of course I wonder about how to
automate it."
earlier in the thread.
In your case, you just have to setup the proper Tortoise template as I
have provided in response to your commit (just the parts which should be
unified of course). I have given some examples on how to use it on request
of Taher, so everything should be pretty clear.
If you still want to stick to your preferences or have doubts, why didn't
you discuss it in the thread?
With unification you have to give up personal preferences and
flexibility, that's seems natural to me and will be the case for every
committer, noone followed the template until recently (including me).
I want to bring this discussion to a good end (we have way more important
topics to discuss) and so it would be nice to get your support on this.
Thanks,
Michael
Am 11.09.16 um 00:39 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
Hi Michael,
I prefer to use Implements instead of Implemented. When I commit it's an
action, not something in the past. I got this habit while working with an
Englishman: Rupert Howell. Nothing better to get a habit in English
language than working with an Englishman. BTW, I still remember Adrian's
reaction when someone tried to learn him how to use English :)
Of course this can be seen as a moot point. I think we need some
flexibility, we are not machines. Fortunately they are far from ready to
replace us doing this job ;)
When I saw Jacopo using "Fix for:", I had a doubt (I'd use Fixes). I
will finally stick to Fixes to be consistent, but will keep the rest
(Improves, etc.) alike in the TortoiseSVN template.
I did not put "'title" in order to save me to have to remove it. I just
write the title after the action. Most of the time the title will come from
the Jira title. Sometimes you need to change it, slightly or not, or to
create it if it does not come from Jira.
I guess that you use parenthesis in (OFBIZ-) like IBM use(s/d?) [] in
its documentation to denote something optional. That would mean for me to
have to remove them most of the them. I don't want that.
I put blaba, to say that I have to write something here (we use that in
French for yada yada). It's a kind of joke here. You can read my commit, I
learnt the hard way how to write something *meaningful* there (mostly
thanks to Adam I must say)
Same for "thanks: x for"
You see all what I did, was done on purpose. I committed this template
for myself. I guess I'm now the only committers using Windows, hence
TortoiseSVN. It's useless for others, they can forget it, else please chime
in.
Now, I totally agree about the proposed template below and it should be
the reference for all of us in the wiki. But again we are not robots. I'll
not chase somebody if he uses "Fix for:" instead of "Fixes"
Thanks
Jacques
PS: you say <<Title should be put in the message without "". >> I don't
agree, it's a reference, I prefer to keep quotes around.
Le 10/09/2016 à 22:19, Michael Brohl a écrit :
Hi Jacques,
following the latest version of our template proposal, the correct
format would be:
===
[Implemented|Improved|Fix for|Documentation]: [Jira title|Free text]
[(OFBIZ-xxxx)]
[More detailed explanation of what has been done and what the fix
achieves,
sideeffects etc.]
[Thanks:] [xxxx for ... and yyyy for]
===
I think the Tortoise template would then be:
===
Implemented: title
Improved: title
Fix for: title
Documentation: title
(OFBIZ-)
blabla
Thanks: x for
===
Title should be put in the message without "".
Tomorrow I will write down the specs in the Wiki with detailed
explanations.
Thanks,
Michael
Am 09.09.16 um 08:55 schrieb jler...@apache.org:
Author: jleroux
Date: Fri Sep 9 06:55:02 2016
New Revision: 1759945
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1759945&view=rev
Log:
No functionnal change, only a rough ToirtoiseSvn template for commits,
can't have empty line (removed by ToirtoiseSvn)
Modified:
ofbiz/trunk/ (props changed)
Propchange: ofbiz/trunk/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- tsvn:logtemplatecommit (added)
+++ tsvn:logtemplatecommit Fri Sep 9 06:55:02 2016
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+Implements
+Improvement for
+Documents
+Fix for
+OFBIZ-
+blabla
+Thanks x to for
