GNU bug report logs - #68401
30.0.50; ERC 5.6-git: `erc-cmd-GMSG', `erc-cmd-AMSG', `erc-cmd-GME', `erc-cmd-AME'. 2nd attempt

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 68401 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Emanuel Berg <incal <at> dataswamp.org>
Cc: emacs-erc <at> gnu.org, 68401 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#68401: 30.0.50; ERC 5.6-git: `erc-cmd-GMSG',
 `erc-cmd-AMSG', `erc-cmd-GME', `erc-cmd-AME'. 2nd attempt
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:03:09 +0200

> From: Emanuel Berg <incal <at> dataswamp.org>
> Cc: 68401 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  emacs-erc <at> gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:36:06 +0100
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > This only gives the header line of a commit log message, but
> > the "meat" is missing. Here's a random example of a valid
> 
> It is valid, I know that since 'git commit' complained several
> times of non-empty lines, too long lines etc.

That's just the beginning of good commit log messages.  The other
aspects are also required, and that's why they are described in
CONTRIBUTE.  We expect the contributors to follow those conventions,
and we point out any deviations from them as part of the patch review
process.

> > Our style is also to mention the interactive prompts in the
> > doc string:
> >
> >     "Send LINE to all channels on all networks you are on.
> >   Interactively, prompt for the line of text to send."
> 
> If so the tools should say so but they don't. This is too
> inefficient for modern society.

Likewise here: we request that contributors adhere to our conventions,
even if the automated tools didn't yet catch up.  That's why patch
review requires human participation, instead of being an automated
process: the tools are not yet powerful enough to make it completely
computerized.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.