unlike previously thought, gerrit does not remove recognized reviewers
who did not actually make a review. so better not suggest adding
potentially misleading footers.
Change-Id: I92d2833ca8888a2c2c09dfacb0cff122cad1eb15
move it even futher up and encourage integrating it into the rest of the
commit message.
Change-Id: I5aaa417a58d420c3d3a8d5ca80dcd9f265c64829
Reviewed-by: Sergio Ahumada <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Marc Mutz <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Frederik Gladhorn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Thiago Macieira <[email protected]>
the change-id will be added at the end, which will look just plain
stupid if the other "real" footers come above the changelog.
also, a smart log author would integrate the changelog entry into the
flow of the message, so further up in the template is more natural.
Change-Id: I053840a81ea62f2e0ad1bd133f2e7a2692a6f2d6
Reviewed-by: Frederik Gladhorn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Thiago Macieira <[email protected]>
- remove contradicting instructions to keep subject to one line and at
the same time wrap at column 72
- git doesn't seem to remove the extra empty line after the subject any
more, so just insert it and don't be so explict about it
- use "footers" instead of "fields". more intuitive, i think
- add some "docu" to the footer templates
- refer to the commit policy at the bottom
Change-Id: Ic1ee454a9535bc9e16aa716043605f57ca79f444
Sanity-Review: Oswald Buddenhagen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Sergio Ahumada <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Robin Burchell <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Rohan McGovern <[email protected]>
Jesus Fernandez