svn commit: r367783 - head

[Adam Weinberger]

On 18 Sep, 2014, at 11:15, Matthias Andree <mandree at FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> Am 09.09.2014 um 23:44 schrieb John Marino:
>> On 9/9/2014 23:27, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>> On 9/9/2014 4:17 PM, John Marino wrote:
>>> I understand your reaction, but it's just the longstanding convention. I
>>> find it a bit rude too, but it speaks to the quality we expect of each
>>> other. Had this all not been fixed quickly we would not have packages
>>> this week.
>> 
>> The pointy hat was on the MOVED entry although I guess I deserve one for
>> removing the port in the first place.
>> 
>> The convention is not cool.  I say it's time to retire this tradition.
>> If one really wants to make a point, send a private email.  Have some
>> class, this is just rubbing a mistake in somebody's face.  This does not
>> make somebody's work better since they'll know about the error when they
>> see the commit.
> 
> I'd cast a ballot with the same mark as John's here.
> 
> Sometimes I'm lazy and mingle some things in one message with a broader
> distribution list, but guilt assignments don't get us anywhere.
> 
> What we COULD do is add a
> 
> Regression: <SVN revision>[, <SVN revision> [...]]
> 
> field and let the system look up whose commit caused the regressions and
> add them to the Cc: or Bcc: (to be discussed).  That way we clearly get
> people on the hook without pointing fingers in public.

Folks, please remember to be nice. Commit messages are written in ink, so don’t use “Pointy hat:” unless it’s in a good-natured manner, and you’re positive the subject will find it funny.

Thinly veiling the blame game by calling people out by $Revision$ is not progress. We don’t need to “get people on the hook,” we need to ssh freefall.freebsd.org "cat /etc/motd|tail -2"

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
adamw at adamw.org
http://www.adamw.org