Florian,
Is there a standard for dist-git commit messages fixing a bug in Fedora dist-git?
I've been sticking with "Resolves: #XXXX", thinking that this would help commit parsers understand what changes went in.
However, the Package Maintenance Guide is silent about this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintenance_guide perhaps I've just been following RHEL standards for this without thinking much about them.
For example:
commit 3bf693773b81fa257c0f6c6aaaf642a2a27e07be Author: Carlos O'Donell carlos@systemhalted.org Date: Wed Sep 5 03:27:31 2018 -0400
Resolves: #1625507
- Provide compatibility support for linking against libpthread_nonshared.a (#1625507)
Versus the other forms:
commit fe0f540287f6254157d9e4b188caa9925e2d94f3 Author: Mike FABIAN mfabian@redhat.com Date: Thu Nov 1 11:55:20 2018 +0100
Include Esperanto (eo) in glibc-all-langpacks (#1643756)
commit 070656dfa4641684272e10259571c911501366b8 Author: Florian Weimer fweimer@redhat.com Date: Fri Nov 9 12:19:50 2018 +0100
Auto-sync with upstream branch release/2.28/master
Upstream commit: 3e8d8dd5afba18a847ff7a80f473336f777cc329
- Disable CET for binaries created by older link editors (#1648297)
Is there a reason to choose a more structured Resolves: #XXX?
* Carlos O'Donell:
Is there a standard for dist-git commit messages fixing a bug in Fedora dist-git?
I like to put the description of the patch in the first line because it's shown by gitk and other history browsers.
I've been sticking with "Resolves: #XXXX", thinking that this would help commit parsers understand what changes went in.
Fedora doesn't need that, it's a downstream thing. The downstream commit hook does NOT recognize “(#XXX)”.
However, downstream only cares that the string is present somewhere in the commit message, so I've begun putting towards the end of the commit message, so that gitk etc. work well downstream, too.
Thanks, Florian