Open Stack

As a core (and former PTL) I just ignored commit message -1s unless there is something majorly wrong (no bug id where one is needed, etc). 

I appreciate well formatted commits, but can we let this one go? This discussion is so far into the meta-bike-shedding (bike shedding about bike shedding commit messages) ... If a commit message is *that* bad a -1 (or just fixing it?) Might be worth it. However, if a commit isn't missing key info (bug id? Bp? Etc) and isn't one long incredibly unbroken sentence moving from topic to topic, there isn't a good reason to block the review. 

It is not worth having a bot -1 bad commits or even having gerrit muck with them. Let's do the job of the reviewer and actually review code instead of going crazy with commit messages. 

Sent via mobile

> On Sep 26, 2015, at 21:19, Ian Wells <ijw.ubuntu at cack.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> Can I ask a different question - could we reject a few simple-to-check things on the push, like bad commit messages?  For things that take 2 seconds to fix and do make people's lives better, it's not that they're rejected, it's that the whole rejection cycle via gerrit review (push/wait for tests to run/check website/swear/find change/fix/push again) is out of proportion to the effort taken to fix it.
> 
> It seems here that there's benefit to 72 line messages - not that everyone sees that benefit, but it is present - but it doesn't outweigh the current cost.
> -- 
> Ian.
> 
> 
>> On 25 September 2015 at 12:02, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
>> On 2015-09-25 16:15:15 +0000 (+0000), Fox, Kevin M wrote:
>> > Another option... why are we wasting time on something that a
>> > computer can handle? Why not just let the line length be infinite
>> > in the commit message and have gerrit wrap it to <insert random
>> > number here> length lines on merge?
>> 
>> The commit message content (including whitespace/formatting) is part
>> of the data fed into the hash algorithm to generate the commit
>> identifier. If Gerrit changed the commit message at upload, that
>> would alter the Git SHA compared to your local copy of the same
>> commit. This quickly goes down a Git madness rabbit hole (not the
>> least of which is that it would completely break signed commits).
>> --
>> Jeremy Stanley
>> 
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150926/fb25d6be/attachment.html>