On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com> wrote:

On 12/21/2015 01:27 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:

Commit logs are suppose to have the information useful to understand
the reason of the change. Latest hides all behind it and does not
communicate anything. I don't think expect people to read the code to
know you bumped (and to which) revision is right.

Having the exact upstream commit id - a bunch of random numbers and letters - in the commit message does not make the commit message any more useful, readable, or searchable. You can't even click on that id to open a gitweb webpage with the upstream patch (having that kind of link *would* be useful though).

The change to the recipe is short, and no one should be overwhelmed by looking at it if they need the commit id.

We are of like minds on those points. It is more important to say why a change

was required, which is all that I look for in anything that I maintain.

That, and I'm always concerned that if someone contributes a patch that fixes

a real problem, or is part of a larger feature, and all they get are nit-pick comments

about more minor elements, it is a barrier to entry. Hence, why I'll also just

fix commit messages on the way into my queues if they need a tweak.

But I digress. I'll see if this passes autobuilder sanity, and if there's a chance,

I'll add a date to the log (but of course the commit also carries that info).

Cheers,

Bruce

Alex

--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end"