From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Metaproblem, part 3 Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:30:07 +0200 Message-ID: <834mtc53m8.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20141203142859.24393.98673@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <20141203193110.GF12748@thyrsus.com> <20141203215426.GA15791@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1417674666 16160 80.91.229.3 (4 Dec 2014 06:31:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 06:31:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: esr@thyrsus.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 04 07:30:58 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XwPwH-0000FZ-KV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 07:30:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44671 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XwPwH-0002s8-6V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 01:30:57 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40455) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XwPvN-0002DS-Sd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 01:30:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XwPvI-0007aE-6K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 01:30:01 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:56137) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XwPvH-0007ZZ-UF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 01:29:56 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NG100100OO9HS00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:29:54 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NG1001GJOPT2M90@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:29:54 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <20141203215426.GA15791@thyrsus.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:178801 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 16:54:26 -0500 > From: "Eric S. Raymond" > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Stefan Monnier : > > Every commit should come with a commit message, yes. > > And every commit message should use the ChangeLog format (plus > > a summary if appropriate). > > And every commit message should be duplicated in the ChangeLog file. > > But Paul Eggert said: "It's not needed for one-liners." Yes, a single one line ChangeLog-style entry can serve also as a summary for itself. > So not only do we have commenting conventions that are duplicative, > fussy, and undocumented, the senior developers seem not to agree on the > details. > > Hello? Hello? Am I the only one that sees a problem here? There is no problem, see above. > I've been hacking on Emacs since before it was GNU Emacs and now *I* > feel like I'm walking on eggshells and the overhead of contributing is > irritatingly high. How much more forbidding do you suppose it is for > J. Random Junior Hacker? They usually get told once, or even just read the previous commit log messages and understand the style by themselves. > Put differently: #emacs has over 500 regulars. It appears to me that > no more than a dozen, if that, have contributed a line of code to the > development tree. Does nobody in the project leadership ever think > about what that implies? We do. I do. > My next commit will be me diligently attempting to comply with > Stefan's instruction. And thinking that a hell of a lot besides the > version-control system needs to change around here. I agree. The question, as always, is what should change and in what ways. "The devil is in the details."