On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 6/21/12 11:47 AM, Herbert Duerr wrote: >> On 21.06.2012 10:17, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >>> We have already introduced the Patch by, Review By .. fields for adding >>> further information. >>> >>> How about logs like >>> >>> #### >>> <issuenumber>:<issue subject line> >> >> I agree that the issue subject line is better than nothing, but I prefer >> that the subject line is about why the change was made. See e.g. the six >> different changes for issue 118923. Why would anyone want the same >> change header for each commit when you can have a description instead >> that matches the change much better? > > good point and I agree. > > That means we use something like > > ### > <issuenumber> + <1_line_summary/description> > > <longer description_on_demand> > > <patch_by_on_demand> > ... > ### > > where > > <issuenumber> is > > - either the plain <number> + ":" > - or #<number># > - or #i<number># > > I can live with all but we should agree on one notation. My preference > is the first and then the second. I don't think we need the lower case > 'i' anymore. > > Older commit messages can be interpreted by knowing the older > conventions and today we have only one bugtracker. >
It may also be possible to change a commit message using svn propedit. Does anyone know if this is enabled for committer access? See: http://subversion.apache.org/faq.html#change-log-msg This could also be useful for older commits that used a different format for "patch by:" acknowledgements. -Rob > Issues from other bugtracker systems should be ideally duplicated in our > system. The other systems can be public or private bug tracking systems > and issue numbers of the latter ones don't help anybody. > > I would like to hear other opinions of people who actually work with our > code. > > Juergen > >> >> I'm also against using a bare issue number, because having a number that >> can be reliably parsed by eventual tools (e.g. a tool that updates >> bugzilla with the revision number, a tool that links the revision commit >> to the corresponding bug URL, etc.) is no extra effort whereas it opens >> a whole world of opportunities. I prefer that computers do such work >> that can be automated because they are rather good at that. >> >>> fix:<short description/summary> >> >> I like the commit conventions used in the linux kernel. Browse some >> "commit" links of the kernel shortlog at >> >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=shortlog >> to see some examples. >> >>> A common notation used by all would be of course helpful >> >> +1 >> >> Herbert > >
