On Mar 5, 2007, at 11:22 PM, Yves de Champlain wrote:
Le 07-03-05 à 20:27, Ryan Schmidt a écrit :
Dear MacPorts committers,
I've seen a lot of commits to portfiles that do more than one thing.
For example, a commit that updates the port to a new version, adds a
new variant, and changes the indentation of the entire file. This
makes it incredibly difficult to see what actually changed, and I
would very much appreciate it if we could get into the habit of
committing each logical change separately.
For example, if you want to change the indentation of the file, do
only that, then commit it, with a log message that says you're
changing the whitespace. If you want to upgrade to a new version, do
just that, and commit it with an appropriate log message. If you want
to add a variant, do that, and commit it. This way it is much easier
to look through the Subversion log and especially the diffs and see
what was changed and why. If you do it all at once in a single
commit, especially whitespace changes which like to affect every
line, it's very difficult to see what was really changed, and this
hinders people like me who are trying to learn more about MacPorts,
portfiles, and compiling software in general.
Hand in hand with the idea of one change per commit is the idea of
accurate log messages. Your Subversion log message should say exactly
what you changed. Don't omit anything!
This is a logical and sane petition by Ryan that we should all try to
meet to guarantee the best communication possible between us all.
However, as many of you have pointed out already, it is difficult to
achieve and therefore a balance should be sought, chiefly what Yves
points out below: sometimes one change per commit makes no sense and
might even be impossible, sometimes that's exactly what the type of
change mandates; all in all, I believe the moto should be "one logical
block of changes == one commit", that logical block of changes be
whatever the maintainer was working on as the next & inseparable
feature set of the Portfile (version upgrade, version upgrade & new
variants, just new variants & new maintainer promoting them, whatever),
but no more than that.
Needless to say, the log message should be as detailed as possible,
but concerning only the changes made to the Portfile, not the ported
(or upgraded, or revised, or whatever...) software. Citing the mpfr
example given somewhere in this thread, a commit log detailing what
each added patch does would be totally overkill; instead, a log simply
listing the added patches and, if available, providing URLs to
descriptions on each of them would be preferable.
Regards to all and thanks for bringing this topic up, this is the type
of thing we need to discuss as a group to improve our communication
flow! All the best,...
-jmpp
Hi
This sure makes sense, but it does not really fit with how a Portfile
is worked. For example, I recently updated e17 stuff and had to
change versions, dependencies, configure environment and arguments,
and I finally decided to also opt in as maintainer. But there is no
"logical order" to do this. 1 commit / change would have meant
artificially creating many versions of the Portfiles afterwards with a
few changes in each one.
However, it is true log messages should be very clear as to what is
happening. i.e.
bump to version ...
change configure.env ...
change deps ...
change configure.args ...
change maintainer ...
Lots of changes, but everything is written clearly.
yves
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
