IcedTea6 1.6 Released!

[Andrew John Hughes]

2009/9/10 Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>:
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
>> I'm not suggesting using it as the sole basis for merging; that would
>> be wrong as you say.  But having a summary line better than 2009-08-27
>>  Matthias Klose  <doko at ubuntu.com> or 2009-09-09  Andrew Haley
>> <aph at redhat.com> would mean you can make a more educated guess as to
>> whether it's worth looking at the entire changeset.
>
> Sure, it's better for the person merging, but even more admin for the
> person committing.  I think we have quite enough procedural rules without
> this.
>

I don't think one line is a major grievance, and we don't really have
any more rules than post your patch from approval and including the
changelog entry in your commit message.

>> You're always going to get this 1-line summary regardless, it would be
>> good to have it as something sensible.
>
> It would be nice, but every time we add more things that a committer
> must do we make it harder for people to contribute.  This one isn't
> worth it.
>

That depends how happy you are with changesets being missed.  Our
current standard for commit messages currently makes that far more
likely than it would be otherwise.

> Andrew.
>



-- 
Andrew :-)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net

PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8