Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de wrote:
In my opinion, if the typo is trivial (f.e. someone typed "fo" instead of "of"), there is no need to -1 the commit, however if the typo pertains to a crucial element of the commit (f.e. someone typed "fixed wkidata bug") perhaps it should, since otherwise people who search through commit messages won't be able to find commits that contain word "wikidata".
Ok, full text search might be an argument in some cases (does that even work on gerrit?).
It works in Git, for example with "git log --grep". I do think that fixing typos should be preferred to preserving typos for eternity, and -1 is better than nothing, but up- loading a new changeset is how it should be done.
But in that regard, wouldn't it be much more important to enforce (bug 12345) links to bugzilla by giving a -1 to commits that don't have them (though they clearly have, or should have, a bug report?)
I'm still in favor of requiring every tag line to contain either (bug nnnnn) or (minor), so people are reminded that bugs should be filed and linked for anything that is not trivial. That's not what I want to discuss here - it just strikes me as much more relevant than typos, yet people don't seem to be too keen to enforce that.
I cannot follow that line of thought at all. The "tag line" is rather short and should give the reader a summary of what the commit is about when browsing through a list of commits. Reserving part of that for a bug number would only be useful if the reader could associate the underlying issue by the number, but apart from bug #1 and a few (other) tracking bugs noone will be able to do so, and those bugs will (un- fortunately) never be closed.
Is there another software project that uses the summary line in a similar way to MediaWiki?
Tim