2017-09-20 17:47 GMT+02:00 Arun Isaac <arunisaac@systemreboot.net>:

>
> I have been working on a guile script to automatically check commit
> messages -- something like `guix lint' but for commit messages instead
> of package definitions. This could help us enforce our commit message
> guidelines and avoid screw-ups like the one I did in commit
> 1ee879e96705e6381c056358b7f426f2cf99c1df. I believe more automation is
> essential and would help us scale better if/when we have more people
> with commit access.
>
Hear, hear.

>
> I have taken the following approach with my script: I have devised a
> grammar (shown below) to parse commit messages. Once the parser outputs
> a parse tree for the commit message, we can apply any number of checks
> on it.
>
> Do you think this is a good approach? If so, I shall proceed with the
> work, and complete the script. If not, what other approach would be
> good?
>

Nice. What parts of the commit message guidelines do you expect to be
verifiable, and which parts do you think will be too hard/restrictive to
automatically verify?

>
> Note that the grammar shown below is incomplete and buggy. Do ignore
> that for now.
>
Alright. If you haven't done so already, adding test cases (from
existing proper and improper commit messages) would ease understanding.

>
> (define-peg-string-patterns
>   "commit <-- module S module S summary NL NL (description NL NL)?
> changelog signature?
> module <-- (!C !S .)* C
> summary <-- (!NL .)*
> description <-- (!(NL NL) .)*
> changelog <-- entry*
> entry <-- bullet S file S section C S change
> file <-- word
> section <-- LR (!RR .)* RR
> change <-- (!(bullet / (NL NL)) .)*
> signature <-- signedoffby signatory S email
> signedoffby < 'Signed-off-by: '
> signatory <-- (!' <' .)*
> email <-- LA (!RA .)* RA
> word <- (!S .)*
> S < ' '
> C < ':'
> NL < '\n'
> bullet < '*'
> LR < '('
> RR < ')'
> LA < '<'
> RA < '>'")


If this works, I would love for it to be a commit hook. Thanks for looking
into this!

- Jelle