Commit messages and the move to git

[Richard Earnshaw (lists)]

On 18/11/2019 17:25, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> 
> On 11/18/19 12:23 PM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>>
>> On 11/18/19 12:20 PM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/18/19 12:11 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:48:03PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 18/11/2019 15:55, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>>>> That immediately shows some of the shortcomings of this approach: the
>>>>>> subject line is much too long, but more importantly, it doesn't make
>>>>>> much sense: it is not what the patch does, it is the description of a
>>>>>> bug that is related in some way to this patch.  It is not uncommon 
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> a commit to not fix the problem mentioned in the bug report (if it 
>>>>>> *is*
>>>>>> a problem!), or not fix it completely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then again, changing all such subject lines to read "patch" could 
>>>>>> also
>>>>>> already be considered an improvement.
>>>>> Well the real question is whether such a summary is worse than the
>>>>> current situation of just printing the author in the wrong field.  I
>>>>> personally don't think it is.
>>>> I think that non-obviously-wrong-but-still-wrong info is not something
>>>> we should introduce.  And, I think this will happen a *lot*.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you can just put in artificial subjects like "Patch related to
>>>> PR12345" or the like?  That is correct, displays a lot better, and is
>>>> at least as useful (imo).
>>>
>>> I don't see but other projects  mention PRS or Bugzilla ids but
>>>
>>> more common in my experience is just mentioned the commit
>>>
>>> ids. For example this fixes commit id x introducing PR x. Commit
>>>
>>> ids are know good so having them linked in commit messages
>>>
>>> is much easier to track then PRs, I can just use git log -p commit id.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There are about 560 commits where the code highlights that the data
>>>>> might be suspect (usually a category mismatch).
>>>> What about commits that mention multiple PRs?  What do you do for 
>>>> those?
>>>> (Are there as many of those as I think, anyway?)Â  With normally very 
>>>> short
>>>> subjects you could put all of them in there :-)
>>>
>>> See my above but for this you would just state the main issue(s) in 
>>> the commit
>>>
>>> message and in the body what commits/PRs are being handled.
>>>
>>> Not sure if that works for everyone but that's normally the best way 
>>> in my
>>>
>>> experience,
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> Sorry but cced the others as this was a misclick.
> 
> One of the emails CCed was boucing so I just fixed that as well.
> 

[strange, I'm not seeing bounces].

> Nick
> 
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Segher

SVN commit Ids can't be fixed here.  Not least because we don't know the 
SHA code for the git commit at this point.  For legacy commit id's we'll 
just need to keep the existing SVN repo available, so that folks can 
look at it with, say, viewcvs.

R.