WineConf action items

[Alex Henrie]

2017-11-06 17:30 GMT+01:00 Jeremy White <jwhite at codeweavers.com>:
>   Subject line < 78 characters (~ 50 best), no period, imperative

As long as we're changing things, let's stop putting periods on the
ends of our patch subject lines. Wine is one of very few projects that
use trailing periods and it's caused me to accidentally format subject
lines incorrectly when writing patches for other open source projects.

For simplicity, I'd like the line length recommendation to be the same
for the first line and all subsequent lines. When I rewrote
<https://wiki.winehq.org/Submitting_Patches#The_commit_message> two
years ago, I put 72 characters as the recommended limit everywhere. I
chose 72 characters based on the recommendation at
<http://tbaggery.com/2008/04/19/a-note-about-git-commit-messages.html>.
In practice, Alexandre really doesn't care how long the first line is,
and probably doesn't care about the subsequent lines either.

>   Prefix subject with subsystem, e.g. 'ntdll: usleep everywhere'.
>   Patch prefixes are quite common (e.g. [PATCH], [RFC], [n/m]), but I'm
> going to treat that out of scope for this research.

Since we're going to merge wine-patches and wine-devel, we're
definitely going to want [PATCH] in the subject. Furthermore, the test
bot depends on the n/m syntax to know whether a patch needs to be
tested with a previous patch applied.

>   Bug # references are good to include, but sadly, this was the one area
> where I didn't find any real consensus.
>
> The kernel wants a URL to bugs.  glibc uses [BZ #nnnn].  Github projects
> use just #nnnnn.  OpenStack uses 'Closes-Bug: nnnnn' and (and
> Partial-Bug and Related-Bug).  Other projects use 'Bug: nnnnn', and one
> uses 'bug #nnnnn'.  I'd be tempted to argue for 'Bug nnnnn', with any
> automated scripts we write also accepting 'bug:nnnnn' (etc).
>
> I saw one project (and now I can't recall which one :-/), that requested
> related bug numbers be provided on a separate, final line.  That struck
> me as overkill, although I can recall seeing the git log and thinking it
> looked pretty :-/.

"Bug: 123456" is nice because it follows the same header syntax we use
for Signed-off-by, and the bug tag could go its own line before the
Signed-off-by tags. I don't have a strong opinion, but I like that
syntax better than any of the others you mentioned.

Thanks for doing the best practices research!

-Alex