Hi all, I suggest we move this discussion back to the mailing list so we can track the progression a bit more easily.
Open Tasks
Unbreak Now! (1)
Needs Triage (14)
- Thu, Feb 25, 5:53 AM
- Fri, Feb 19, 5:54 AM
- Jan 28 2021, 11:55 AM
- Dec 30 2020, 5:45 AM
Assigned: KenLSoft- Dec 4 2020, 2:45 AM
Assigned: davidhuziji
Recent Activity
Yesterday
Thu, Feb 25
Wed, Feb 24
Proposal sent in email to board and voted Yes. This has since been superceded by a fixed-size deve team. Can close this issue.
Tue, Feb 23
Vote: Jens Wiklander (qemu and OP-TEE Dispatcher): disapprove
I too have concerns with adding more tags to the the subject of the commit message.
Mon, Feb 22
We have had some contact with some other TF.org projects but was not aware of the Mbed TLS project had its own solution already. Its already acknowledged we should to look for a common solution across projects. This discussion is part of that engaging. We do need to make a decision at some point.
Hi, I agree with @danh-arm. We should try to come up with a unified guidance, if possible. I think we will have a better idea of the path forward, once most of the maintainers respond. Personally, I would be open to merging both approaches to get the best of both worlds.
I think tags in the subject of the commit message are problematic in general. Since commits are expected to capture "logical unit of change", the granularity of tags and commit scope often mismatches. While not mandated in the "Contributors Guide" sections, some commits indeed use tags already (i.e. libc, spmd, docs, etc..). What if a "logical unit of change" affects multiple components (i.e. a fix affects both libc and spmd)?
Hi, I just want to make you aware that the Mbed TLS project has a different, home-rolled solution to this problem:
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/ChangeLog.d/00README.md
Sun, Feb 21
Yes, I have found that 50 chars is not enough to describe commits many times. Adding a tag would mean sacrificing space. But I am open to adding this tag to the commit message instead of the header. We already plan to add tags to the message anyways?
I think this is generally a good move. The transition period will be ugly and unavoidable but we should reap the benefits of it long term. I do agree with Varun's concern about using tags in the headers but it is a trade-off we will have to make for the benefits standard commits offers.
Varun, is the format <conventional commit tag>:<plat> or <submodule>:<short message> not sufficient? I dont think we want to pack too much into the header any way in terms of what the commit is doing.
Fri, Feb 19
Vote: <Varun Wadekar> (<Tegra>): <disapprove>