Open Stack

On 26/09, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> 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
> 

I have to disagree, as reviewers we have to make sure that guidelines
are followed, if we have an explicit guideline that states that
the limit length is 72 chars, I will -1 any patch that doesn't follow
the guideline, just as I would do with i18n guideline violations.

Typos are a completely different matter and they should not be grouped
together with guideline infringements.

I agree that it is a waste of time and resources when you have to -1 a
patch for this, but there multiple solutions, you can make sure your
editor does auto wrapping at the right length (I have mine configured
this way), or create a git-enforce policy with a client-side hook, or do
like Ihar is trying to do and push for a guideline change.

I don't mind changing the guideline to any other length, but as long as
it is 72 chars I will keep enforcing it, as it is not the place of
reviewers to decide which guidelines are worthy of being enforced and
which ones are not.

Cheers,
Gorka.



> > 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

> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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