On Wednesday 02 February 2011, i...@michael-jansen.biz wrote: > Zitat von John Layt <johnl...@googlemail.com>: > > > On Wednesday 02 February 2011 09:19:29 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 01:37:26PM -0800, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > >> > * adapting http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/SVN_Commit_Policy > >> > >> i'd suggest a look at http://qt.gitorious.org/qt/pages/CommitPolicy, in > >> particular point 8 of the rules. the point it makes is independent from > >> using git (in fact, we have a similar point already), except that with > >> git it is so much easier to do that, so at least a certain percentage of > >> people may actually adopt it. > > > > +1 to that, especially the commit template and more descriptive commit > > messages. > > > > In fact, attached is my attempt at such a template based on the Qt one. > > It's > > a bit verbose as it's intended as an educational tool, once people > > know what's > > expected they can delete all the comments in their local copy. > > > > If the Commit Digest guys want some tags added to make their life easier, > > now > > would be the time to speak up. > > > > John. > > > > I like it but would propose: > > > # ===[ Subject ]=======================================================| > # ---[ One line only, short meaningful description to show in logs ]---| > > > # ===[ Details ]=======================================================| > > # ---[ Blank line above intentional. Do not remove ]--------------| > # ---[ Describe what has changed and explain why it has changed ]------| > > It think that is more robust .
I like it as well. How can I make sure calligra hackers get to see this when they try to commit? -- Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org, http://www.krita.org
