On Monday 2017-04-17 23:20 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 4/17/17 10:45 PM, Jim Blandy wrote: > > It seems like there is actually not a consensus on this. (I had thought > > Smaug's view was the consensus, and found bz's post surprising.) > > Really? I know where Olli is coming from, but even in his view a commit > message like the one I was talking about is not OK, I'm pretty sure. > > And note that in this case the bug had no useful information either, for > what it's worth.
I think one of the things we agree on is that the commit message should be worded as a description of the code change, not as a description of the problem that's being fixed. There doesn't seem to be as much agreement on how much background it should provide, although I tend to be on the side of providing more information in the commit message. I consider bugzilla to be fundamentally the wrong UI for bug tracking as I described in https://dbaron.org/log/20120816-bug-system and https://dbaron.org/log/20130129-bugzilla and as a result I don't pay much attention to the comments in bug reports; I mainly read the summary. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
