[Nix-dev] On commit naming conventions

[Graham Christensen]

I've found this post insightful (disregard the title) about how to not be too much of a stickler with new committers:
https://blog.spreedly.com/2014/06/24/merge-pull-request-considered-harmful/

Graham

> On May 4, 2016, at 6:26 AM, zimbatm <zimbatm at zimbatm.com> wrote:
> 
> Each contributor has his own motivations and every round were we provide feedback is another one where we might lose the contributor. He might run out of energy, or have moved onto other things.
> 
> Even after improving the CONTRIBUTING.md, naming of commits is still a really big friction to getting valid code into nixpkgs. I'm talking of how commits should be named after a patter like "package: init at x.y.z" or "package: a.b.c -> x.y.z".
> 
> I must admit I don't really know the motivations behind this rule. All I can think of it that we could theoretically build some tooling and get pretty cool stats out of it. And that spelunking git history becomes a tiny bit easier.
> 
> Given all that I think we should reconsider that rule. In my opinion if a contributor submits valid nix code that is useful to the project we should just be able to merge it and move forward. For me it's more important than the commit naming rule.
> 
> Opinions ?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nix-dev mailing list
> nix-dev at lists.science.uu.nl
> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev