Re: Status update - version 5.2.2, cvs->git conversion, plans

[Dima K. <gn...@di...>]

Daniel J Sebald <dan...@ie...> writes:

>> I'm all for detailed log messages, but I feel strongly that requiring
>> rigid Changelog-like commit messages is counterproductive. If the patch
>> is convoluted-enough such that it requires detailed documentation about
>> every modified function, and this documentation doesn't belong in a
>> comment for some reason, then sure, put whatever is helpful into the log
>> message. I will argue, however, than this case is more an exception than
>> the rule.
>
> But if everyone uses their own style of documentation, how are people
> searching log messages (in qgit or whatever) and reading the summaries
> supposed to quickly formulate what has changed and where.  One is
> looking to quickly find the info, not try to figure out everyone's style
> of presenting information, or to go searching every code change.
> Instead it's, "Ah, this looks like the changeset where the bug came in,
> so now I will look more closely at the diff hunks themselves."
> Furthermore, I believe there are editors/pagers that will highlight the
> format that gnuplot has been using because it is rigid and known.

This argument seems so foreign to me that I don't even know how to
respond exactly. What information are you hoping to get from
Changelog-style text that you don't get in other ways?

Filenames? 'git log --stat' gives you that

Function names? 'git show' gives you that

Rationale for the change? This should be granular not to a particular
function but to the commit as a whole, and if needed, there should be an
essay accompanying the commit message. If your descriptions are granular
to each function, then maybe your commit isn't fine-grained enough, and
should be split up.

Are you against comments because they aren't structured?


>> And as a sporadic contributor to multiple projects, I DREAD those that
>> have pointless and rigid style requirements. PLEASE don't throw in
>> obstacles for new contributors.
>
> I didn't say if there is a new contributor unfamiliar with the process
> that their changeset file (or even a plain patch file) should be
> completely discarded because s/he didn't follow the rules.  But its
> easier for the person writing the changes to summarize them than to have
> the reviewer do so.  Spending five minutes on a log message is a problem
> after spending two-plus hours on a modification and testing?

Unambiguously: yes, it is a problem. When I'm spending hours on fixing
and testing things, I'm working on issues that need to be solved. I like
fixing things, and contributing ever-so-slightly to openly-available
tooling. If I have to think about people's arbitrary (and to me,
pointless) stylistic whims, then I feel like I'm wasting my time.