From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-yx0-f180.google.com ([209.85.210.180]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NafjR-0004dc-0Y for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:33:12 +0100 Received: by yxe10 with SMTP id 10so1249703yxe.12 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:30:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Hhvw3ROXo0o99oBHAsSdnLo0VC+NxfYXsUM3lP/dveo=; b=ZzJld5eOgdJsdfYn3NzjeOY28KJ3ZsfsXFSooVPA57w7NIDFegwZQOe3bKtznL7I7x THjn3lF6vejDMScYljaW2fRQGZmmE45H6HhpL8F82TPL1CgxsJgsBEhp4VT+Etpygz7t 6nhYtH3ezVCBw6IevEdXARSoRoegCqKRqdBtE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=Hi6xmDLbX2HPZwy7wbTt/LBTPuQRdpTOVkGdyKpx2xx7lqimpkxeiykWaAnCHvb/C0 CUS9ZuhF3nTObI+a+nunU4Z+EtKSWB+t/xFScdG8agMtUTWsodYUjN53h4S/TU4SZQgj K0InHkrJNL9fONeFagK4gOnUVunTtjUDgI5o0= Received: by 10.150.4.26 with SMTP id 26mr839877ybd.0.1264728645377; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:30:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from gmail.com (99-57-141-118.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [99.57.141.118]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm537798yxe.0.2010.01.28.17.30.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:30:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:30:29 -0800 From: Khem Raj To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-ID: <20100129013029.GA6136@gmail.com> References: <20100128200049.GA4958@gmail.com> <1264715530.9974.436.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1264715530.9974.436.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.210.180 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: raj.khem@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on linuxtogo.org); Unknown failure Subject: Re: update hook for git to check push commit message X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:33:12 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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.