On (28/01/10 21:52), Phil Blundell wrote: > On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 12:00 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > > Attached is a small hook for updates that are pushed into repo. > > Right now it only checks the first line of the commit and expects > > module: summary > > I'm not really in favour of applying the commit message policy quite > that harshly. The wiki page that you linked to doesn't really seem to > support this kind of check: the actual guidance it gives about checkin > messages is:
Thats true. However I have seen many devs complain about the module: summary. That was my motivation. > > * Have a clear commit message (example): > - The first line of commit is a summary of the changes. > - The first line should start with the name of the recipe the change > affects. > - The rest of the message should give more details on the change as > appropriate. > - Mention the affected bug numbers if appropriate. > - Give credit where credit is due. If you commit someone else's work more > or > less verbatim, you should use git commit --author $mail-of-author. If > pulling > changes from somewhere like Poky or OpenMoko there is no problem with > that > but mention where the changes came from. > - Include a Signed-off-by: line indicating the change has valid > certificate > of origin as per the Linux kernel > > ... which is nowhere near as prescriptive as the rule that you seem to > be implementing in your script. Also, the wiki page has an explicit > statement that "[these] rules are not hard fast rules", which would > suggest that even such guidance as it does provide is not intended to be > taken too dogmatically. > > Personally I think that the current situation of the TSC applying > pressure to those people who seem to be chronically unable to write > suitable checkin comments is a perfectly fine way of solving the > problem. Probably it could help developers to check the commit messages on their own by making this as post commit or pre push hook of some sort in their clones .git/hooks > > On a technical level, I think you could probably do without the sed > subprocess, and "summary = rev.split(1)" doesn't look quite right > either. true. I could have got it if I have tested it. The check for : should also be inverted. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
