Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:10:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: Benjamin Kaduk <bjkfbsd@gmail.com> Cc: rgrimes@freebsd.org, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r317409 - head/contrib/tcpdump Message-ID: <201704252010.v3PKA0ba063109@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <CAJ5_RoDGo_xO6%2BTwWgCTOoPE9rKCzwBw6heF6m96brJtw=q3qA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Rodney W. Grimes < > freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > > [ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ] > > > > > > On the contrary, a git SHA1 seems like an eminently stable and unique > > > search parameter! > > > I agree that a commit log should inline some summary of the change as > > well > > > as provide a > > > link to the external source, but I am not worried that a future reader > > will > > > be unable to find > > > the referenced commit. > > > > There is no administrative policy in place that says github users shall > > maintain there history. > > > > > That is correct. Nor should there be! > > (However, even if they change their history, the direct link to a commit > will still work, > due to the way the github implementation works -- you have to delete and > recreate > a repository in order to fully expunge a commit.) > > I don't expect the previous parenthetical to provide any persuasive value, > of course, > as you have to know where to look before it's useful. But, right now there > are some > 300-odd forks of tcpdump on github, no doubt including Gleb. If > the-tcpdump-group > goes away, there's a lot of backups, not just in github forks but also the > local clones > of people using github. Do you really think that the collapse of such a > prominent > project would leave an unarchived void? I don't understand what scenario > you're trying > to protect against, basically. This is the first time I have seen a raw git1 sha used in the body of the commit message, at best it should be in a Obtained From: Are there other commits that use a raw git sha1 as the explination for the commit, with or without supporting text? > > I had too many indirections to find this change on github: > > commitlog -> google -> wrong article that references this sha1 -> actual > > commit > > > > I re-iterate lets NOT start to use git hashes in our commit messages. > > > > I'm sorry, but I must continue to oppose this sentiment. I would prefer a And so we stand opposed. > full > (github or otherwise) URL including the commit hash to just a bare commit > hash, > but find either acceptable and adequate for the purpose. (FWIW, the > correct commit > was the top google hit for me.) > > I hope we are in agreement that commit messages ought to still include some > description of what change is being brought in, in addition to the > hash/link, though. Commit messages should stand complete and alone, without need to refernce outside material to understand what was changed and why it was changed. Again, at best Obtained From: should of been a usable url. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201704252010.v3PKA0ba063109>