Re: commit type

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:15 PM, 7rans [off-list ref] wrote:

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin <at> gmx.de> writes:

quoted

So you want to force this onto all Git users?

Not at all. It would be a purely optional. You would never even need to know the
feature existed if you didn't want to use it. So I'm not sure how that is
forcing it upon anyone.

Moreover, I suggested it b/c I would find such a feature very useful, and, by
extension, thought others might as well. Perhaps others have done something
similar, in which case it would be interesting the hear their take, or on the
other hand they've never considered it before, but now can consider the
potential utility of just such a feature.

quoted

If yes: that murmur you hear in the background, it might well be the
collective "thanks, but no thanks" of people who do not want that type of
distinction between different commits

There is no need to make one. It's purely annotative.

The problem with this approach is that it begins to dictate a set of
annotations which are considered 'more important' by the git core than
others. By allowing in your 'commit type', it sets a precedent that
git will add random, possibly not backwards compatible metadata
changes just to support the local policies of some subset of git
users. It's far better to provide a generic feature that will cover
all users; and using the commit description, with hooks to enforce
proper format according to local policy, is just that.

If using the commit description, with hooks to enforce whatever
formatting you prefer, is not sufficient for your needs, then it would
be useful to discuss exactly how this would be deficient, and then
possibly think about adding a /generic/ feature that meets your needs.