On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 1:20:29 PM UTC-4, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > 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
Maybe we should have a style guide, explaining what makes a good commit message and what makes a good and descriptive bug, with number of (good and bad) examples. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
