threads / discuss / 40476
Subject: Git feature request: mark a commit as minor
Felipe Micaroni LalliA minor change (also called "cosmetic") usually is a typo fix, doc improvement, a little code refactoring that don't change the behavior etc.
In Wikipedia we can mark an edition as "minor".
It would be nice to have an argument like "--minor" in git-commit to mark the commit as minor. Also, filter in git-log (like --hide-minor) to hide the minor changes. The git-log could be optimized to show minor commits more discreetly.
Thank you.
Jacob KellerRe: Git feature request: mark a commit as minor
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Felipe Micaroni Lalli <micaroni@walltime.info> wrote:
> A minor change (also called "cosmetic") usually is a typo fix, doc > improvement, a little code refactoring that don't change the behavior etc. > > In Wikipedia we can mark an edition as "minor". > > It would be nice to have an argument like "--minor" in git-commit to > mark the commit as minor. Also, filter in git-log (like --hide-minor) to > hide the minor changes. The git-log could be optimized to show minor > commits more discreetly. > >
This should just be part of the commit message log, generally projects use something like TRIVIAL in the patch subject or similar. You could also standardize for your project(s) what would be considered a minor change. The issue is that not everyone considers these changes as "minor". You should be able to use a combination of the --grep option in log to search for all commits who don't contain that string in the right format.
Regards, Jake
Re: Git feature request: mark a commit as minor
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Felipe Micaroni Lalli > <micaroni@walltime.info> wrote: >> A minor change (also called "cosmetic") usually is a typo fix, doc >> improvement, a little code refactoring that don't change the behavior etc. >> >> In Wikipedia we can mark an edition as "minor". >> >> It would be nice to have an argument like "--minor" in git-commit to >> mark the commit as minor. Also, filter in git-log (like --hide-minor) to >> hide the minor changes. The git-log could be optimized to show minor >> commits more discreetly. >> >> > > This should just be part of the commit message log, generally projects > use something like TRIVIAL in the patch subject or similar. You could > also standardize for your project(s) what would be considered a minor > change. The issue is that not everyone considers these changes as > "minor". You should be able to use a combination of the --grep option > in log to search for all commits who don't contain that string in the > right format.
Could also be a good use for notes, since you might want to add this markup after the fact.
-- Mikael Magnusson
Felipe Micaroni LalliRe: Git feature request: mark a commit as minor
Thank you Jacob.
Actually we already use the keyword MINOR for that, exactly as you said.
The suggestion was made because I think it is a common behavior and it would be nice to be a meta info to standardize this (today each team adopt a different pattern for that - you used "TRIVIAL" e.g.). Nice things could be done with this meta-info. It could be totally ignored (current git operation) or it could be used to filter, to sort, to group commits, to show the log pretty etc.
> The issue is that not everyone considers these changes as "minor".
I understand this issue, I know it is subjective. But if someone don't want to make the distinction just don't use the argument --hide-minor for example.
On 03/10/2015 03:17, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Felipe Micaroni Lalli >> <micaroni@walltime.info> wrote: >>> A minor change (also called "cosmetic") usually is a typo fix, doc >>> improvement, a little code refactoring that don't change the behavior etc. >>> >>> In Wikipedia we can mark an edition as "minor". >>> >>> It would be nice to have an argument like "--minor" in git-commit to >>> mark the commit as minor. Also, filter in git-log (like --hide-minor) to >>> hide the minor changes. The git-log could be optimized to show minor >>> commits more discreetly. >>> >>> >> >> This should just be part of the commit message log, generally projects >> use something like TRIVIAL in the patch subject or similar. You could >> also standardize for your project(s) what would be considered a minor >> change. The issue is that not everyone considers these changes as >> "minor". You should be able to use a combination of the --grep option >> in log to search for all commits who don't contain that string in the >> right format. > > Could also be a good use for notes, since you might want to add this > markup after the fact. >
Jacob KellerRe: Git feature request: mark a commit as minor
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Felipe Micaroni Lalli <micaroni@walltime.info> wrote:
> Actually we already use the keyword MINOR for that, exactly as you said. > > The suggestion was made because I think it is a common behavior and it > would be nice to be a meta info to standardize this (today each team > adopt a different pattern for that - you used "TRIVIAL" e.g.). Nice > things could be done with this meta-info. It could be totally ignored > (current git operation) or it could be used to filter, to sort, to group > commits, to show the log pretty etc. > >> The issue is that not everyone considers these changes as "minor". > > I understand this issue, I know it is subjective. But if someone don't > want to make the distinction just don't use the argument --hide-minor > for example. > >
I think use of git-notes is probably the best way. Not sure how/if you can implement filtering on that, but I don't personally think something like this belongs in core git.
Regards, Jake
Fredrik GustafssonRe: Git feature request: mark a commit as minor
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 06:38:46PM -0300, Felipe Micaroni Lalli wrote:
> A minor change (also called "cosmetic") usually is a typo fix, doc > improvement, a little code refactoring that don't change the behavior etc. > > In Wikipedia we can mark an edition as "minor". > > It would be nice to have an argument like "--minor" in git-commit to > mark the commit as minor. Also, filter in git-log (like --hide-minor) to > hide the minor changes. The git-log could be optimized to show minor > commits more discreetly.
I can see your problem and implement your suggest is a solution that would work. However since this is a common problem, git already has a solution, that is the interactive rebase.
You can read a discussion about when to use merge and rebase here: http://www.mail-archive.com/dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg39091.html
This work method make the "minor" commits to go away. There shouldn't be any minor, or "fixup" commits in your history (of course there's exception).
Minor things should be caught in your code review process and then fixed, rebased and the merged again.
Or do I miss a usecase here?
-- Fredrik Gustafsson phone: +46 733-608274 e-mail: iveqy@iveqy.com website: http://www.iveqy.com
Felipe Micaroni LalliRe: Git feature request: mark a commit as minor
You are right. It could be useful to fix old commits (already pushed) but it could encourage bad practices. Minor changes should be avoided, it is an exception, not a rule.
Thank you Fredrik.
On 03/10/2015 15:12, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 06:38:46PM -0300, Felipe Micaroni Lalli wrote: >> A minor change (also called "cosmetic") usually is a typo fix, doc >> improvement, a little code refactoring that don't change the behavior etc. >> >> In Wikipedia we can mark an edition as "minor". >> >> It would be nice to have an argument like "--minor" in git-commit to >> mark the commit as minor. Also, filter in git-log (like --hide-minor) to >> hide the minor changes. The git-log could be optimized to show minor >> commits more discreetly. > > I can see your problem and implement your suggest is a solution that > would work. However since this is a common problem, git already has a > solution, that is the interactive rebase. > > You can read a discussion about when to use merge and rebase here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg39091.html > > This work method make the "minor" commits to go away. There shouldn't be > any minor, or "fixup" commits in your history (of course there's > exception). > > Minor things should be caught in your code review process and then > fixed, rebased and the merged again. > > Or do I miss a usecase here? >