On 01/28/2016 09:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Tomas Vondra
>>> <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>> Why can't we do both? That is, have a free-form text with the nuances, and
>>>> then Reviewed-By listing the main reviewers? The first one is for humans,
>>>> the other one for automated tools.
>>> I'm not objecting to or endorsing any specific proposal, just asking
>>> what we want to do about this. I think the trick if we do it that way
>>> will be to avoid having it seem like too much duplication, but there
>>> may be a way to manage that.
>> FWIW, I'm a bit suspicious of the idea that we need to make the commit
>> messages automated-tool-friendly. What tools are there that would need
>> to extract this info, and would we trust them if they didn't understand
>> "nuances"?
>>
>> I'm on board with Bruce's template as being a checklist of points to be
>> sure to cover when composing a commit message. I'm not sure we need
>> fixed-format rules.
> Well, I think what people are asking for is precisely a fixed format,
> and I do think there is value in that. It's nice to capture the
> nuance, but the nuance is going to get flattened out anyway when the
> release notes are created. If we all agree to use a fixed format,
> then a bunch of work there that probably has to be done manually can
> be automated. However, if we all agree to use a fixed format except
> for you, we might as well just forget the whole thing, because the
> percentage of commits that are done by you is quite high.
>
Yeah.
I have no prejudice in this area, other than one in favor of any rules
being fairly precise. As for nuances, I guess they can be specified in
the commit message. The one thing I do find annoying from time to time
is the limit on subject size. Sometimes it's very difficult to be
sufficiently communicative in, say, 50 characters.
cheers
andrew