Re: change commit message format to present tense?

[Tim Graham]

As it seems there isn't consensus on this and the current message format 
works fine as far as I'm concerned, I'm dropping the proposal.

I thought the question "if we adopt some new SCM tool that has a different 
commit message format, would we adopt that format?" is an interesting one.

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 5:00:50 AM UTC-4, Wim Feijen wrote:
>
> I agree with Reinout and on the use of the present tense, so a commit 
> message would read:
> "Adds password validation to prevent the usage of ..."
>
> My mind finds this way easier to understand than: "Add password validation 
> ..."
>
> Wim
>
> On Monday, 27 June 2016 13:55:54 UTC+2, Daniele Procida wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016, Reinout van Rees  wrote: 
>>
>> >Op 26-06-16 om 05:31 schreef Kevin Christopher Henry: 
>> >> If anyone's put off by the hectoring tone of the imperative mood, it 
>> >> might be better to think of it as the indicative mood. That is: 
>> >> 
>> >> (This will) "add password validation to prevent the usage of...". 
>> >> 
>> >> rather than 
>> >> 
>> >> (You must) "add password validation to prevent the usage of..."! 
>> > 
>> >"It might be better to think of it as...": it is exactly this extra 
>> >thinkwork that everyone reading the messages has to do. We write it once 
>> >and read it many times: what should we optimize for? 
>> >In our source code, the answer is clearly that you should optimize for 
>> >readability. 
>> >Why is it suddenly different for commit messages? 
>>
>> I'm inclined to agree with Reinout that a descriptive message makes more 
>> sense and is easier to understand than one written in the form of an 
>> instruction. 
>>
>> Why would a log record be written as an imperative? 
>>
>> "Updated gnools" tells you what has happened (and even "Updates gnools" 
>> is a label saying what the thing it's attached to will do). 
>>
>> "Update gnools" would make sense as the label for an interface button, 
>> but not really as a record in a log. 
>>
>> Apart from consistency with Git's own messages, I don't really see the 
>> advantage. 
>>
>> Daniele 
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/b38b2ddd-8fbf-43ff-915d-b3fd57087524%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Proposing Channels as an Official Project

[Andrew Godwin]

Hi everyone,

Now the Official Projects DEP has landed, I would like to submit Channels
for consideration as one.

As per the DEP (
https://github.com/django/deps/blob/master/final/0007-official-projects.rst),
the final decision is down to the Technical Board, but a discussion phase
is an important part, especially given the resistance to it landing in 1.10.

So, there are two questions:

a) Right now, I am the only member of the Maintenance Team and the Shepherd
of the proposal as well. I would like to invite people who might be
interested in joining the Maintenance Team to email me personally to
discuss what's needed; I would love to have a team of two or three before
we take it further. Some MOSS money should be available for this role, but
that depends on the funding committee and won't last forever.

b) What are your reasons for and against adopting Channels as an official
project? Read the DEP for full details of what it means to be one, but the
key points are us going under the security policy, cross-linking docs,
moving under the Django organisation on GitHub, and guaranteed
compatability with current Django releases.

I personally think this is the right move for Channels; adopting it as an
official project and mentioning it in the official docs gets us a long way
to filling the hole I first saw in Django without going all the way into
core straight away.

Andrew

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFwN1urCrJkcCXPuH_yfSdr4YG0jjb5SiCMKw0UG2pGnsjrs1w%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.