[Seaside-dev] commit messages

[Julian Fitzell]

Well, ok. I disagree (I'll save the details for some other time :) ), but I
see the issue change emails too, so as long as you describe what the *fix*
was in the issue log, that will serve the same purpose.

And please don't be dramatic, Philippe. I'm asking for a phrase - maybe 20
seconds of your time per commit - to save everybody else following the
project from having to load an image, wait an eternity for Monticello to
load the package, and study the diff. How many commits have you done in the
last month? Are you really telling me 20 seconds for each of those adds up
to enough "corporation bullshit" to cause the failure of our project? Sorry,
I don't buy it for a second.

I was simply asking if people writing code would be willing to do me the
favour of investing a few seconds of their time to make life a little easier
for people reading it.

Julian

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich at vmware.com> wrote:

> FWIW, I agree with Philippe here.
>
> The issue tracking system is where the detailed information should be
> recorded ... if one is checking in code without recording information in the
> issue tracking system, then I would agree with Julian's comment, there needs
> to be additional information, but with a full thread in the issue tracking
> system there is no need to duplicate the information in the commit
> message...
>
> Dale
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> | From: "Philippe Marschall" <philippe.marschall at gmail.com>
> | To: "Seaside - developer list" <seaside-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> | Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 10:02:53 AM
> | Subject: Re: [Seaside-dev] commit messages
> |
> | 2011/6/20 Julian Fitzell <jfitzell at gmail.com>:
> | > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Philippe Marschall
> | > <philippe.marschall at gmail.com> wrote:
> | >>
> | >> So I should copy and paste the description from the linked issue
> | >> into
> | >> the commit message?
> | >
> | > Not unless that explains what you changed. I mean, clearly
> | > sometimes the
> | > description of the issue leaves no ambiguity. e.g.:
> | >
> | > "Issue xxx: WAPharoPlatform missing implementation of #fooBarBaz"
> | >
> | > Probably just saying you fixed the issue is ok in that case. But
> | > even then,
> | > a comment of "implemented it" or "implemented it to call primitive
> | > version"
> | > or something would be helpful.
> | >
> | > Usually there are many possible fixes to an issue - what one did
> | > you decide
> | > on? Just give me enough information to know whether I want to go
> | > check the
> | > fix further...
> |
> | I don't get payed enough for such big corporation bullshit. We got
> | here not in spite but because we don't have such policies.
> |
> | Cheers
> | Philippe
> | _______________________________________________
> | seaside-dev mailing list
> | seaside-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> | http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
> |
> _______________________________________________
> seaside-dev mailing list
> seaside-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/seaside-dev/attachments/20110620/a0182dc7/attachment-0001.htm