From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R3dtb-0003QM-PG for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 03:04:15 +0200 Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca [147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8E0wvqb010817 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Macintosh-5.local (172.25.36.226) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.255.0; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:58:57 -0700 Message-ID: <4E6FFC50.3070700@windriver.com> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:58:56 -0500 From: Mark Hatle Organization: Wind River Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <1315961204.2252.32.camel@scimitar> In-Reply-To: <1315961204.2252.32.camel@scimitar> Subject: Re: [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 01:04:16 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 9/13/11 7:46 PM, Joshua Lock wrote: > 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? We talked about this a bit while doing the original guidelines. We debated between: Summary [BUG #XXXX or URL] Long description Signed-off-by:... or Summary Long description [BUG #XXXX or URL] Signed-off-by:... The former was chosen simply cause it shows the reader that we have a fixed a bug (at the external reference) without them having to read or skim the long description. I can't say I care either way, other then I agree the former is a bit quicker to read -if- the goal of reading is to determine which commits are bug fixes, vs general development. BTW -- [YOCTO #XXXX] is one of the "well defined" formats that is mentioned in the guidelines document. But if I was to point to a bug fix in say the GNU Hurd bugzilla (is there such a bugzilla?) that should likely contain the full URL, as people won't be used to seeing it... --Mark > Regards, > Joshua > > 1. > http://openembedded.org/index.php?title=Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#New_Development >