Sounds like we have a consensus - use the format SENTRY-123: Fix important feature (Hacker Master, reviewed by Foo Bar and Ben Hur) Any other comments
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Sergio Pena <sergio.p...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Agree. > > I've seen the following format repeated in other Apache components: > > *SENTRY-2026: Bump Hadoop version from 2.7.2 to 2.7.4 (Na Li, reviewed by > Sergio Pena)* > > That is really helpful. We should use that to know who review the code and > who is the author of the code as well. > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Na Li <lina...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > Sasha, > > > > I agree we should have consistent format. It is better to include author, > > then followed by reviewer. So we can have all information at a glance. > > > > Lina > > > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Alexander Kolbasov <ak...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I noticed that recently our commit messages became veru inconsistent: > > > > > > The format we used to have: > > > > > > SENTRY-2014: incorrect handling of HDFS paths with multiple forward > > slashes > > > (Vadim Spector, reviewed by Sergio Pena and Arjun Mishra) > > > > > > SENTRY-2015 - Refactor Command implementations > > > - Reviewed by Sergio Pena > > > > > > Here reviewer is in the second line > > > > > > SENTRY-2013 - Align the SentryGenericServiceClient and > > > SentryPolicyServiceClient a bit more closely > > > - Signed off by Kalyan. > > > > > > Here there is no reviewer by it has "Signed off', > > > > > > SENTRY-2017: Fix Sentry e2e tests to use > > > SentryMetastorePostEventListenerNotificationLog. > > > > > > No committer or reviewers here > > > > > > I think we should agree on one standard format, document it and follow > it > > > for all commits. > > > > > > - Alex. > > > > > >
