[policy, no patch] Determine format for commit credit for individuals/organizations/customers

See also 🌱 Discuss if git commit messages should be multiple lines Needs review . Do we need to refactor all of this into a unified meta? There's a ton of overlap between these two issues.

Bumping to NR.

Thanks!
-Derek

I think we need one issue, not sure which one, maybe a new one altogether with references to the duplicates. The issue credit system is implemented on Drupal.org and doesn't rely on parsing commit messages so most of the discussion here is very out of date now.

Somewhere... not sure if it's in the issue queue, there's a proposal to rely on https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/ which seems worth exploring.

Yes please, https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/#summary is exactly the Angular git commit format I proposed 7 years ago in #2802947: [meta] Use the Git commit message format from AngularJS → . Happy to see they made a specification out of it!

It's very likely that we will not keep a version of the commit/merge UI we have on Drupal.org issues when upgrading Drupal.org. The recommended way to do a merge will be using the merge button in GitLab. That almost certainly won’t support a list of usernames like we have now. Git trailers, like mentioned in conventional commits, are likely to have some support. I suspect we may have to do something special to get people who helped the issue, but didn't participate in the MR, mentioned. Ideally, we find a way to forward Drupal.org credit data into GitLab's default merge request commit message.

https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/commit_templates.... has a few options, with varying degrees of hackiness:

When the maintainer saves issue credit:

• We could make a MR comment authored by each credited person who hasn't made an MR comment, to update %{reviewed_by}
• We could make an empty commit authored by each credited person who hasn't made a commit, to update %{co_authored_by}
• We could reset approvals and say every credited person approved, to update %{approved_by}
• We could rewrite a commit message on the branch being merged
• We could update the MR description to update %{description}

Those are all somewhat non-ideal in various ways. I'd probably choose updating the MR description over the others; and start spreading the message that the MR title & description is the place to make a draft commit message.

Or, we decouple commit message mentions from issue credit and don’t worry about having them (mostly) match.

We could build in the new system a message suggestion that could be copy/pasted into the MR description if desired, otherwise give freedom to do any commit message since the credits are decoupled from it.

Yes, catch is right this needs a new issue for discussion. I have created 🌱 [policy] Decide on format of commit message Active for that. And as he pointed out much of the discussion here was about credit and that is now outdated.

I am not sure if this should be Closed as fixed or outdated. Someone else may know and I will think about that. In the meantime I am setting to RTBC.

Hmm there was useful discussion here, but we never changed the commit message format - credit was implemented purely on the d.o side and commit messages remained the same. I think we should close it as outdated (original intention was done but in a very different way), and move onto the issue to actually improve the commit message format which @quietone linked.

Changing to latest version when this was closed.

Crediting discussion participants; this was a valuable discussion that contributed in part to the contribution credit system as it exists on d.o today. Also, it's not all that often these days that I get to credit Dries on an issue. 🙂

Thanks everyone!