Samuli Suominen <ssuomi...@gentoo.org> said:
> 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?" ;-)Because it is not pointless. Useful commit messages save lots of time. -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
