On 10/01/2015 08:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> On 2015-10-01 11:07:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm inclined to think that commit messages are not really the right medium
> for that at all. Commit messages ought to be primarily text for
> consumption by humans. If we had a tracker, I think that it would be the
> place for fixed-format metadata, such as "fixed in version(s) x,y,z" and
> "fixed by commit(s) aaa,bbb,ccc". Expecting the tracker to link to the
> commit rather than vice versa would also solve a bunch of other problems
> like assigned-after-the-fact bug numbers. Not to mention plain old
> mistakes: once committed, a log message is immutable, but a tracker could
> be updated as needed.
What I imagined was this:
TGL commits foo, part of the commit message says: Status: Committed.
Then a commit hook is fired from git to the tracker from a fixed
address, That message would say:
Git commit $hash
Status: Committed
Which would not only link to the specific commit but also automatically
close the ticket with a status of Committed. Does that make sense for
-hackers? It seems like it would take a load off but I am not the one in
it every day.
>
> If this process actually works, I could see the tracker becoming the
> source material for generating release notes, at least for bug-fix
> notes. We do it off the commit log now because that's all we've got,
> but the log isn't really ideal source material.
Yep.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.