From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R3dhj-0002oY-6T for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 02:51:55 +0200 Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Sep 2011 17:46:44 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,352,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="48115218" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.14.59]) ([10.255.14.59]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Sep 2011 17:46:44 -0700 From: Joshua Lock To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:46:38 -0700 X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3 (3.0.3-1.fc15) Message-ID: <1315961204.2252.32.camel@scimitar> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: [RFC] Suggestion of minor change to patch submission policy re: long descriptions in commit headers X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 00:51:55 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Our patch submission policy[1] "Optionally, you may include pointers to defects this change corrects. Unless the defect format is specified by the component you are modifying, it is suggested that you use a full URL to specify the reference to the defect information. Generally these pointers will precede any long description, but as an optional item it may be after the long description." I've been guilty of always having the defect id after the description, and have never included the defect URL (though my reading suggests this is not required for Yocto defects I still believe this will make the defect id's more useful for fellow OE-Core developers). Whilst I intend to rectify the latter I'd like to propose we change the former such that the defect information is at the end of the commit message. I believe this is more suitable for the project because the defect information and its relevance should be summarised in the long description, and therefore the defect id and link to the defect tracker are supplemental information for interested readers. IMHO this supplementary nature should lead us to request submitters provide defect information after the long description. Thoughts? Regards, Joshua 1. http://openembedded.org/index.php?title=Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#New_Development -- Joshua Lock Yocto Project "Johannes factotum" Intel Open Source Technology Centre