Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:41:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@FreeBSD.org> To: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Committer's guide policy on commit message contents Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1011127173613.21564A-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20011127165507.B12400@espresso.q9media.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Mike Barcroft wrote: : :I completely agree. The main intent of my message was to point out :the absurdity of following this rule. If commit messages did indeed :only answer the why, they would be very cryptic. : :Best regards, :Mike Barcroft Hrm. I always thought that you were supposed to say only why since you can see what was changed in the commit (Yes, you can diff versions in cvs.. it's not that bad :-P). I agree with Robert regarding the idea of including little summaries if and when large commits with multiple parts are done -- At this point, reviewing a diff would be unreasonable so hints as to what is going on would be beneficial from a time saving perspective _and_ from a "racking your brain to figure out what's going on" perspective. While one might say that including what you changed would always save you time, I agree that is the case, but I think that viewing source first hand is always better than just understanding what the persons log summarizes. just my opinion Cheers, Andrew -- Andrew R. Reiter arr@watson.org arr@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1011127173613.21564A-100000>