Le 28/04/2011 23:43, Jiří Techet a écrit :
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 07:01, Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 04/27/11 21:01, Lex Trotman wrote:
- No need to maintain changelog and authors files
Changelog and authors are still needed for tarballs, but maybe they can be automated?
Seems not too hard with git log and some shell script[1]. I think the original thread also mentions a way (or that it's possible).
As said in another message, our ChangeLog isn't a simple "git log" mirror. See the other mail for a few more details.
There would be no need to use "Thanks" in each commit message, since the author of the commit is the person who wrote the code in it, for example[2] where I just sent Neil a properly formatted patch of my local commit and he applied it directly, keeping the history in tact. If it needed fixing to get added into the main code, this will also be reflected in the history by the next commits to fix it (and I believe the original thread says another way to do this), so no need for "Based on patch by ..." in any commit messages either.
Just for completeness, sometimes the patch needs to be modified by the maintainer but in these cases it's better to have 2 commits - one containing the original patch and one with the maintainer's changes (especially when the modification actually screws up the original patch).
I don't like the idea of committing something I don't second, e.g. I patch I have to modify just after. For me the primary goal of a commit is to reflect a particular change, and being able to revert it/cherry-pick it, etc., so it should be a whole, no less and no more.
If I have to commit someone's patch with changes, I would tend to either leave it to him if the modifications are minimal (e.g. a few formatting issues, a missing free(), etc.) or take it to me, adding original author's mention (if the modifications are important).
Cheers, Colomban