On 4/25/17 1:07 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
I bet there's always room for improvements, and I hope this was a counterpoint
for the example only, not for the bug organization approach.
Sort of.
It was a counterpoint to "just check the bug; all the info is there".
Often it's not there, or not there in usable form.
If people included a summary of the discussion in the bug right about
when they commit, or had bugs that actually explained what's going on
clearly. I would be a lot more OK with the "check the bug" approach.
Overall it feels with me that long comments vs check-the-bug is rather
different styles
To be clear, I don't think commit messages need to be _long_. They need
to be _useful_. A commit message pointing to a particular bug comment
that explains all the ins and outs is no worse, from my point of view,
than a commit message that explains the ins and outs.
The problem I started this thread to address is things like a commit
message that says "flip this bit" and references a bug entitled "flip
this bit", with no explanation of what the bit does or why it should be
flipped. I hope we can all agree that _that_ is not OK. And it's far
too common.
-Boris
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
