Difference between revisions of "Sahara/GitCommits"
< Sahara
(→Git commit good practice) |
(changing body text Savanna to Sahara) |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | This document is a short tutorial with requirements and tips for committing to | + | This document is a short tutorial with requirements and tips for committing to Sahara. |
== Git commit good practice == | == Git commit good practice == |
Latest revision as of 18:05, 11 March 2014
This document is a short tutorial with requirements and tips for committing to Sahara.
Git commit good practice
- one "logical change" per commit:
- don't mix whitespace/refactoring changes with functional code changes;
- don't mix two unrelated functional changes (or functional with whitespace/refactoring changes);
- don't send large new features in a single giant commit;
- change request subject (first line of the commit message):
- it should start from the upper case letter;
- avoid usage of ':' in the subject (remember that it'll be displayed in the following form: "Change I1de3f893: Refactoring unit tests for validation");
- avoid trailing punctuation;
- it should be separated from the rest of commit message with empty line;
- specify corresponding Launchpad bugs and blueprints in commit message:
- bugs should be specified one per line in the following format: "Closes-Bug: #123456" or "Partial-Bug: #123456";
- blueprints should be specified after blueprints one per line in the following format: "Implements: blueprint name-of-blueprint" or "Partially implements: blueprint name-of-blueprint";
- make commit message clear:
- 'Change-Id: IXXX' should be the last line and separated with empty line from the rest message;
- separate bugs/blueprints with the empty lines before and after;
- information in commit message:
- the commit message must contain all the information required to fully understand & review the patch for correctness; less is not more; more is more;
- do not assume the reviewer understands what the original problem was;
- do not assume the reviewer has access to external web services/site;
- do not assume the code is self-evident/self-documenting;
- describe why a change is being made;
- read the commit message to see if it hints at improved code structure;
- ensure sufficient information to decide whether to review;
- the first commit line is the most important;
- describe any limitations of the current code.
Examples of good commit messages
TBD