On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 02:18:56PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 18 November 2015 at 21:59, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Sarah Sharp > > <sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > >>> There's not really a consensus I guess, but most people do leave the > >>> version > >>> information in the final commit message. > >> > >> I personally feel like that's leaving boredom doodles on a final > >> architectural drawing. If people want to know the back-and-forth > >> history, the mailing list archive will always be there. So, no, I don't > >> really want to leave version info in the commit message. > > > > FWIW I wholeheartedly agree with this line of reasoning. I never put > > the version info into my commits either, and find it > > confusing/misleading when others do. I want to know the final state of > > things when looking at the commit 1 year from now, not the 20-step > > process and all the wrong turns to get there. > > > > The other side of the coin: > > - One might not have access to the discussion - ISP/ML archive is > down. discussion was offline or no longer available (10+ years ago), > etc. > - Revision history is immediately available, rather than going back > and forth between git/browser/email client. > - We can easily ignore the revision history hunk > - Hitting more than v3 is a clear sign something fishy (most likely > lack of experience of said author), which in itself is useful.
Or perfectionist maintainers, or a controversial change that touches many subsystems. It's not uncommon for a kernel patchset to make it up to v8, even if the idea is sound. Glad to hear that mesa is less picky than the kernel anyway. :) Sarah Sharp _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
