Hi all, I think we should solve this problem instead ignoring it. It's good to have this check as a huge number of reviews are simply "please update the commit message", which is also a bad experience.
@Bobby: Could you try to figure out a more user-friendly way for the commit message to be rejected. IMO, this should work like a rejected rebase. If you just do `git commit` again, then the original commit message should still be there. Thanks! Jason On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 11:47 PM Gabe Black <gabebl...@google.com> wrote: > It is thrown away if you then attempt to create another commit, assuming > the first one went worked, overwriting COMMIT_EDITMSG. Then when I wrote > the message again it failed again, and then I ran git commit trying to > figure out what happened, and the COMMIT_EDITMSG was thrown away again. > There is also no way that I know of to bring that back into the editor to > fix it. I have disabled the check locally and plan to leave it that way. > > Gabe > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 7:56 PM Bobby Bruce <bbr...@ucdavis.edu> wrote: > > > Gabe, > > > > Commit messages are not thrown away but are instead stored in > > "./.git/COMMIT_EDITMSG" > > if rejected. Perhaps this should be explicitly stated when a commit > message > > is rejected. > > > > As you may already be aware, this is a result of Daniel's (relatively) > new > > git commit message checks: > > > > > https://gem5.googlesource.com/public/gem5/+/refs/heads/master/util/git-commit-msg.py > > . It seems the valid arm tag is "arch-arm". You could update your commits > > with this tag or add submit a change adding "arm" as a valid tag in this > > file (to lead to further discussion). > > > > I personally prefer there being a valid set of tags to stop the constant > > invention of new tags to describe commits which may, in practise, be > > duplicates of old tags (though we can expand them as needed). I'm > therefore > > still in support of these checks. It also helps us understand who the > > maintainers for a particular commits are by cross-referencing with > > MAINTAINERS.md (fyi: there is no maintainer for the "arm" tag). > > > > Kind regards, > > Bobby > > -- > > Dr. Bobby R. Bruce > > Room 2235, > > Kemper Hall, UC Davis > > Davis, > > CA, 95616 > > > > web: https://www.bobbybruce.net > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 7:27 PM Gabe Black <gabebl...@google.com> wrote: > > > > > I think until this changes, --no-verify is going to become a permanent > > > fixture of my commit command line. > > > > > > Gabe > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 7:20 PM Gabe Black <gabebl...@google.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi folks. I just spent 10 minutes writing up a commit message, only > for > > > it > > > > to be thrown away because git didn't like the tag I had which I've > used > > > > many times (arm). This is a really bad experience and IMHO not how > this > > > > should be done. > > > > > > > > I believe at the time this change was introduced I pointed out how > this > > > > sort of check was a bit heavy handed, and I especially feel that way > > > after > > > > it threw away my work. > > > > > > > > Gabe > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > gem5-dev mailing list > > > gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > _______________________________________________ > > gem5-dev mailing list > > gem5-dev@gem5.org > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > gem5-dev@gem5.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
