"Document foo/bar config option"
On 4 December 2013 16:54, Alexander Shorin <kxe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On other hand when you see commit message: > > Add foo/bar config option > > What is your first though? Oh, new config option! But no, that was > missed option description in docs. To resolve such collision I may tag > my commit message: > > Docs: add foo/bar config option // now you know what have changed! > > or imagine something like: > > Add missed foo/bar/config option description in docs // too long > > How I could solve this problem? > > -- > ,,,^..^,,, > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Jason Smith <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > -1 > > > > We do this at Nodejitsu and I find it tedious and unhelpful. It's a bit > of > > ceremony with little benefit. For me at least, I never want to see "only > > [foo] commits" I want to see "only commits in subdirectory foo/". > Otherwise > > I see the commits through `git blame`. > > > > That's my opinion, but I am comfortable being overruled. > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I would like to propose that we start to tag our commits. The reasonning > >> behind that is to distinct easily the changes concerning the doc, the > ui > >> and the core and filter them immediately and force us to make a change > >> atomic. So I would like to propose that we tag the commit line with > >> > >> [DOC] > >> [UI] > >> [CORE] > >> > >> other ? Another way to distinct the changes would also be to have all of > >> these as subprojects eventually but it may require too much changes. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> - benoit > >> >
