On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Jason Grout
<jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/12 2:46 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Jason Grout
>> <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/7/12 2:16 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:08 PM, William Stein<wst...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Simon King<simon.k...@uni-jena.de>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi William,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7 Feb., 20:47, William Stein<wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's important (in fact, critical) that the trac ticket number is
>>>>>>> clearly available in the commit message. But having it twice in two
>>>>>>> different ways in almost every message seems a little bit sloppy to
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We were told, by different release managers, that the commit message
>>>>>> has to identify the ticket number. Patches not following the rule were
>>>>>> rejected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that rule has changed in the meantime, the new rule ("Do not
>>>>>> mention the ticket number in your commit message!") should be enforced
>>>>>> in the same way as the old rule was enforced.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the commit message should mention the ticket number. This
>>>>> makes it much easier to keep track of stuff, even before the release
>>>>> manager puts the code in Sage. E.g., I have a big patch queue of my
>>>>> own code, and I find the ticket numbers in commit messages useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I'm suggesting is that the script that auto-adds ticket numbers
>>>>> should strip the user-added ticket number first, to avoid extensive
>>>>> duplication.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or at the very least not add it if it's not already there. (Stripping
>>>> it in all its variants might be hard.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I think the canonical number should be the
>>> automatically
>>> prepended number, and that the prepended number should *always* be added:
>>
>>
>> Are you arguing that this from "hg log" is a good commit message?
>>
>> summary: Trac #6804: Trac #6804: change '=' to '>=' in the
>> docstring for Permutation.weak_excedences()
>
>
>
> Given the choice between unreliable and inconsistently formatted ticket
> numbers that require manual maintenance, compared to automatic, correct, and
> consistent numbers, I'd choose the latter, even if it meant that sometimes
> the number is duplicated.
> I would rather the script try to strip out the ticket number if it already
> exists, replacing it with a properly formatted automatically generated
> ticket number, rather than trying to decide whether to prepend the ticket
> number. In other words, I think the final commit message should contain an
> automatically-generated, consistently formatted ticket number.
+1 -- that's exactly what I want.
> My post was more about advocating the opposite of Robert's suggestion (i.e.,
> I think we should always prepend, and decide whether you should strip out
> the existing number), than arguing against making the script smarter.
Cool.
>> If I then qfinish the patch, that tag vanishes, right? At least if I
>> simply import the patch then it vanishes.
>>
>
> Good question. I operate under the assumption that a developer never
> qfinishes a patch; it's the release manager's job to commit the patch. I
> don't know what happens when you qfinish the patch. Obviously the release
> manager script isn't run in that case.
>
OK, I'm beginning to be convinced Mercurial is kind of lacking
(compared to git) if the only way for 99% of us to use it is to only
use queues.
-- William
--
William Stein
Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
