On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Alexander Kanavin < alexander.kana...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 01:27 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > Commit logs are suppose to have the information useful to understand >> the reason of the change. Latest hides all behind it and does not >> communicate anything. I don't think expect people to read the code to >> know you bumped (and to which) revision is right. >> > > Having the exact upstream commit id - a bunch of random numbers and > letters - in the commit message does not make the commit message any more > useful, readable, or searchable. You can't even click on that id to open a > gitweb webpage with the upstream patch (having that kind of link *would* be > useful though). > > The change to the recipe is short, and no one should be overwhelmed by > looking at it if they need the commit id. > We are of like minds on those points. It is more important to say why a change was required, which is all that I look for in anything that I maintain. That, and I'm always concerned that if someone contributes a patch that fixes a real problem, or is part of a larger feature, and all they get are nit-pick comments about more minor elements, it is a barrier to entry. Hence, why I'll also just fix commit messages on the way into my queues if they need a tweak. But I digress. I'll see if this passes autobuilder sanity, and if there's a chance, I'll add a date to the log (but of course the commit also carries that info). Cheers, Bruce > > Alex > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end"
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
