[oe] [OE-core] Git commit process question.

[Khem Raj]

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:41 AM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 11:30:39AM +0100, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 20:46, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > The kernel does not have "upgrade foo to the latest upstream version" commits.
> > > >
> > > > With the Automatic Upgrade Helper this is a semi-automatic task, and
> > > > most of the time there is no specific motivation other than upgrading
> > > > to the latest upstream version.
> > >
> > > But since that's just filling in a template the body can also be a
> > > template perhaps with useful AUH data (run at ... by ... ?) ?
> >
> > Apart from making the commit message longer what does this achieve?
> > The commit already has a timestamp and author.
>
> It's an etiquette thing.  Subject+Sign-off+Empty body is bad form.  AUH
> updates are a form of "trivial update" that every project has.  "Update
> $X from version $Y to $Z" is what a human would normally put.  It's
> weird looking at git log of nothing but subject+signed-off-by.  I'm not
> going to object further on this point, but I don't get it.

if the content of subject is being repeated in body then I would
prefer an empty body
redundant information in commits should be avoided since it can create
impression that body does not have
useful information and skip reading it. We should strive to make commits
concise and useful.