[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Commit message policy?
mehdi.amini at apple.com
Fri Mar 6 16:15:30 PST 2015
> On Mar 6, 2015, at 4:08 PM, Robinson, Paul <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Mehdi Amini
>> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 1:49 PM
>> To: Davide Italiano
>> Cc: Clang Dev; LLVM Dev
>> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] Commit message policy?
>>> On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:36 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
>>>> On 6 March 2015 at 20:59, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
>>>>> I think the only guideline we should have is that the first line
>> should be
>>>>> written as though it is an email subject, because it gets used for
>> that. If
>>>>> you write a long first line, then you get a long subject, and it looks
>>>>> silly. If people want to embarrass themselves with strangely formatted
>>>>> email, they it's on them. We don't need a specific hard or soft
>>>> Not many people care about the email subject already, that's why they
>>>> keep using ridiculously long first lines.
>>>> IMO, "suggesting" to write short first lines is the same as not doing
>>>> anything. Either we add a cap (say, 80 chars), or we don't do
>>>> Chandler's other suggestion, tough, is interesting: to write up a bit
>>>> about what a *good* message would be, so the people that were really
>>>> interested, could do it "right" (tm).
>>> Another guideline I would like to propose for commit messages is that
>>> of attaching to the commit a link to the code review, if any.
>> I believe it is documented here:
> That would be the norm for people doing reviews in Phabricator.
> I think the suggestion is to do something similar for non-Phab reviews?
Oh, like a link to the email thread, for instance: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20110314/117996.html ?
As a Phabricator user, I haven’t thought about that, it makes sense I guess.
Thanks for the clarification.
More information about the llvm-dev