Agree, If there is a better format for commit message we can adapt to that.
If any one has a suggestions, please feel free to do so. we can discuss
about it.
If there is none, let's stick on to the older format.
-Kalyan
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Sergio Pena
wrote:
> Agree.
>
> I've seen
Sounds like we have a consensus - use the format
SENTRY-123: Fix important feature (Hacker Master, reviewed by Foo Bar and
Ben Hur)
Any other comments
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Sergio Pena
wrote:
> Agree.
>
> I've seen the following format repeated in other Apache components:
>
> *SENTR
Agree.
I've seen the following format repeated in other Apache components:
*SENTRY-2026: Bump Hadoop version from 2.7.2 to 2.7.4 (Na Li, reviewed by
Sergio Pena)*
That is really helpful. We should use that to know who review the code and
who is the author of the code as well.
On Wed, Nov 1, 201
Sasha,
I agree we should have consistent format. It is better to include author,
then followed by reviewer. So we can have all information at a glance.
Lina
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Alexander Kolbasov
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I noticed that recently our commit messages became veru inconsiste
Hello,
I noticed that recently our commit messages became veru inconsistent:
The format we used to have:
SENTRY-2014: incorrect handling of HDFS paths with multiple forward slashes
(Vadim Spector, reviewed by Sergio Pena and Arjun Mishra)
SENTRY-2015 - Refactor Command implementations
- R
