On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:21:09AM +0100, Edward Welbourne wrote: >> However, you seem to be talking about *release* 5.x.0 rather than the >> *branch* of that name, so I'm not really clear on what you're talking >> about.
25 January 2017 12:13, Oswald Buddenhagen: > i don't know how you arrived at this conclusion, but it isn't relevant > to my reasoning anyway. On the other hand, it's a fairly good clue to the possibility that I've misunderstood what you were talking about. >>> we could suppress the changelog enforcement for example by standardizing >>> my "amends <sha1>." lines in the commit messages. if the reference is to >>> a commit which has not been tagged yet, we know that users won't find it >>> interesting. > >> I have never heard of these amends <sha1> lines; where are they >> explained ? >> > git log --author=oswald So a sort of after-the-fact fixup! tag. >> In any case, users may find a change interesting even if there is no >> specific earlier commit that can be pinned down [...] > > unsurprisingly, i think that the correct fallback in case of a missing > reference is assuming that the commit relates to a tagged commit (if > it's even a fix at all) and therefore complaining about a missing > changelog. I don't know what you're saying, much less why it's supposed to be the obvious interpretation. A "tagged commit" is presumably v5.7.0 or similar; why should a commit without an amends line be assumed to relate to one of these ? I *can* see how an amends line would be a basis for not demanding a changelog entry, though. Eddy. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development