On 10/28/2010 09:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 10/28/2010 12:30 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>>> On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +0000, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>> ssuominen 10/10/28 09:25:23
>>>>
>>>> Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
>>>> Log:
>>>> qa
>>>
>>> I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of
>>> what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious.
>>> I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to
>>> be justified by "QA".
>>
>> removal of quotes from "${A}", EAPI=2 to get src_configure to put
>> econf and tc-getCC in, || die to make dobin, rest were unnecessary
>> cosmetics not worth logging about
>>
>> so qa/cosmetics, are you really 'complaining' for not mentioning
>> 'cosmetics' in the commitlog?
>
> come on man, all you have to say is "clean up and update to EAPI 2".
> that is infinitely better than a useless "qa". people can easily
> interpret "QA stuff" in a variety of significantly different ways.
> -mike
>
agreed,
I wasn't saying it was a perfect commit message. my point is more "why
are we having pointless discussion of commit messages in the first
place?" ;-)
