On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:52 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > There has been a request in the FOSDEM developers meeting that > committers use a more consistent format for commit messages. This is > the format I use: > > -- email subject limit ----------------------------------------- > -- gitweb summary limit -------------------------- > > > Report by > > Patch by > > Reviewed by > > Backpatch through > > The dashed lines are used to specify a target length for the summary > line and are automatically removed before the commit message is posted.
One of the things I like about the current free-form approach is that you can indicate nuances, like: Person X reviewed an earlier version of this patch that was a lot different than this one. Person X reviewed this patch but didn't totally endorse it. Person X wrote the documentation for the patch, but none of the code. Person X wrote the vast bulk of this patch, even though there are some other authors. Should I just abandon the idea of trying to capture those details, or does this format contemplate a way to include them? (Also an important question: Has Tom agreed to use this new format? Because I think that anything the rest of agree on that he's not prepared to endorse is not going to have much value.) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
