On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 09:22:56 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) > <ras...@rasterman.com> said: > >> On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 22:08:09 -0200 Lucas De Marchi >> <lucas.demar...@profusion.mobi> said: >> >> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> >> > wrote: >> > > On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:33:35 -0200 Lucas De Marchi >> > > <lucas.demar...@profusion.mobi> said: >> > > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Carsten Haitzler >> > >> <ras...@rasterman.com> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:51:28 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri >> > >> > <barbi...@gmail.com> said: >> > >> > >> > >> >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Carsten Haitzler >> > >> >> <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote: >> > >> >> > On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:05:55 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri >> > >> >> > <barbi...@gmail.com> said: >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Cedric BAIL >> > >> >> >> <cedric.b...@free.fr> >> > >> >> >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tom Hacohen >> > >> >> >> > <tom.haco...@samsung.com> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> This reminds me. Let's git rid of this changelog and news >> > >> >> >> >> none-sense already. >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > Sounds like a good move... when we will have a proven record of >> > >> >> >> > usable commit message to generate a ChangeLog and NEWS from it ! >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> it would be very beautiful to spot bad committers, not only bad >> > >> >> >> messages: >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Raster(1234): >> > >> >> >> Fix stuff >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > no such commit log from me (not in efl, elm or e) >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> dbg-- >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > yes - and that tells you want you need to know. removing debugging. >> > >> >> > everythng you need is there. i don't see why it needs to be more >> > >> >> > descriptive. also no such commit log in e, efl or elm >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> Fix break due remove dbg >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > and again - told you what you need to know (and no such commit log >> > >> >> > as above >> > >> >> > - i searched and found none of these). >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > i wrote all my commit logs ASSUMING people digest them via the svn >> > >> >> > comits list. that means they get the log AND the diff below. if the >> > >> >> > diff is trivial why should i repeat in the log what the diff >> > >> >> > already >> > >> >> > says ? git log -U will do the same. i always did it this way to >> > >> >> > save >> > >> >> > repeating information you already have, but it seems everyone likes >> > >> >> > to not use the information they already have. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> The best (or worse) part of this is that you didn't get the joke. The >> > >> >> problem was not the commit messages, rather the commits themselves. >> > >> >> The above should be like: "Fix stuff" only, not the following 2 >> > >> >> commits that are useless and could be avoided if you didn't push to >> > >> >> git after every commit, instead get them tested and reviewed, being >> > >> >> pushed in a batch afterwards when you're sure work is good. >> > >> > >> > >> > try reviewing the backlog of patch reviews first before suggesting >> > >> > every dev needs to put their commits in for review first. considering >> > >> > the small volume of patches there gets ignored for days or weeks at a >> > >> > time... just wait for the total zero-movement efl and e will do if its >> > >> > done your way. >> > >> >> > >> I don't think he's saying for you to send your commits through >> > >> phabricator or anything like that. The point is... you can git commit, >> > >> then test stuff, do something more, commit again, etc, etc, etc. And >> > >> if it happens to be "oohh... I did a bad commit before", you can just >> > >> squash the commit... After all that you can git push. no need to add >> > >> new commits on top with just printf-- >> > > >> > > "get them tested and reviewed" reads to say to get them tested and >> > > reviewed.. by others. at least in english it does. :) >> > >> > So in English there's no way to say "review your own commits before >> > pushing?" ;-) >> >> yes there is. "review your commits" as opposed to "get your commits >> reviewed". >> the second is a passive construction - the meaning is to have someone (ales) >> review your commits. the first is to say "go review them". > > err "someone (else)"... :)
ok. but more important than the english bike shedding, do you understand now? Do you agree? Lucas De Marchi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
