[Nix-dev] On commit naming conventions

[Arseniy Seroka]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

I'm working with PR for more than 1,5 years. I saw maybe once that a person completely lost his interest.

On 5 May 2016 12:13:45 GMT+03:00, zimbatm <zimbatm at zimbatm.com> wrote:
>This paragraph in the article sums the problem pretty much:
>
>> What’s even more frustrating is that even though Jane provides
>feedback
>quickly, often contributors lose interest and/or forget about taking
>their
>Pull Requests the final step after initially contributing them. The
>apparent triviality of the changes Jane’s asking for (somewhat
>perversely)
>contributes to that loss of interest, since it just feels like
>nit-picking
>when she’s asking for the fifth overlooked stylistic change.
>
>Especially if the only motivation is to keep the git history pretty, it
>doesn't play any functional role. I agree that the person merging could
>also amend the commits but then it just shifts the burden to this group
>of
>people. Wouldn't we rather move forward and get even more code merged ?
>
>On Wed, 4 May 2016 at 13:09 Graham Christensen <graham at grahamc.com>
>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>nix-dev mailing list
>nix-dev at lists.science.uu.nl
>http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQFDBAEBCgAtJhxBcnNlbml5IFNlcm9rYSA8YXJzLnNlcm9rYUBnbWFpbC5jb20+
BQJXKxGeAAoJEMTxMd9/e0DjfU8IAMJO1N2RFQ7GQRO3JxBPqOZB8yqkTOafoVry
H0BHYjnCRIaLER1s6MFO6+ELf0ynhZ+aaOJcHqyV5xR5KOegeYmfk33/3BDIPZq0
g+Hc0YfiKzq23R6PeHLm2DNE5XpMA1kzmqOeH3tEprcURhu4tgTkcaIXMxg/v/Bq
jQKvdvsfDQJaoWKFUvGFtB0SgC7pJZ7gVEmF8EJJWDrVBNBOEZ6ncp49ewAuSPyD
bv9QtWvek1a2RKqso6pYMWSpu3nPepsWF89kHRlPs0KCBZjhel+DZODaBHzd+Sk3
MeFXgLK7bBIh5A58XVYCQleaZaZB8QkHBqgoKAsr9lFioDqPs8c=
=uZUq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----