Files
training-guides/doc/upstream-training/source/17-commit-message.rst
Matjaz Pancur 7da3955588 upstream cleanup 17
Syntax and formatting cleanup for Sphinx/Hieroglyph.

Change-Id: I3961c9f263bf98be367acff6da0697eda8366903
2015-04-20 15:16:43 +00:00

2.0 KiB
Raw Blame History

Commit messages

colright

 <teacher name>
 <date>

Commit messages

  • quality of the OpenStack git history
  • carrot by alerting people to the benefits
  • anyone doing Gerrit code review can act as the stick
  • review the commit message, not just the code
  • Developers read mostly, write occasionally
  • https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages

Structural split of changes

  • Small means quicker & easier
  • Easier to revert
  • Easier to bisect
  • Easier to browse

Things to avoid

  • Mixing whitespace changes with functional code changes.
  • Mixing two unrelated functional changes.
  • Sending large new features in a single giant commit.

Bad: two independent changes

image

Bad: new feature and refactor

image

Good: new API + new feature

image

Do not assume ...

  • the reviewer understands what the original problem was.
  • the reviewer has access to external web services/site.
  • the code is self-evident/self-documenting.

Information in commit messages (1/2)

  • Describe why a change is being made
  • Read the commit message to see if it hints at improved code structure.
  • Ensure sufficient information to decide whether to review.

Information in commit messages (2/2)

  • Describe any limitations of the current code.
  • Do not include patch set-specific comments.
  • The first commit line is the most important.

Required external references

  • Change-id
  • Bug
  • blueprint

Optional external references

  • DocImpact
  • SecurityImpact
  • UpgradeImpact

GIT commit message structure

image

Exercise

Review each others commit messages on the draft