[cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] Commit message policy?

[Renato Golin]

I don't think we should mention phabricator at all. I only mention
attribution because that's legally important.

Cheers,
Renato
On 8 Mar 2015 16:31, "Kuperstein, Michael M" <michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com>
wrote:

> Hi Renato,
>
> I know this is nitpicking, but do we want to specify the order between
> "Patch By" and "Differential Revision" for Phabricator reviews from people
> with no commit permissions?
> (The Phabricator page says "the convention is for the commit message to
> end with the line...")
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On
> Behalf Of Renato Golin
> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 18:12
> To: Hal Finkel
> Cc: Clang Dev; LLVM Dev
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Commit message policy?
>
> Second draft, being less strict.
>
> I kept the "body align to 80 col" because I say "should", not "must", and
> because we already have the same policy for code and documents.
>
> cheers,
> --renato
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20150308/572a4489/attachment.html>