On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Nathan Wagner <nw...@hydaspes.if.org> wrote: > Two, I think any attempt to tell the developers and committers that they > need to change their workflow to adapt to some system is bound to fail, > so, I have asked, just what changed would you all be willing to actually > *do*? Tom Lane is pretty good at noting a bug number in his commit > messages, for example. Would he be willing to modify that slightly to > make it easier to machine parse? Would you be willing to add a bug > number to your commit messages? I'm not asking for guarantees. > Actually I'm not really asking for anything, I'm just trying to figure > out what the parameters of a solution might be. If the answer to that > is "no, I'm not willing to change anything at all", that's fine, it just > colors what might be done and how much automation I or someone else > might be able to write.
I'd personally be willing to put machine-parseable metadata into my commit messages provided that: 1. I'm not the only one doing it - i.e. at least 3 or 4 moderately-frequent committers are all doing it consistently and all using the same format. If Tom buys into it, that's a big plus. 2. Adding the necessary metadata to a commit can be reasonably expected to take no more than 2 minutes in typical cases (preferably less). 3. Adding the metadata doesn't cause lines > 70 characters. I am not a fan of the "Discussion: Message-ID-Here" format which some committers have begun using, sometimes with just the message ID and sometimes with the full URL, because anything which causes horizontal scrolling makes me sad. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
