On 12-03-03 06:28 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Le 04/03/2012 02:01, Jiří Techet a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 08:33, Matthew Brush<mbr...@codebrainz.ca> wrote:
On 12-02-26 11:20 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
Hi folks,
Just something I thought on last merges based on Jiri's patches. Its
hard to understand what this merges do just by reading the commit
message. Given, that we want to create the ChangeLog based on git log it
will be nearly impossible to create a good ChangeLog/Newsfile if we
don't keep care..... Not sure how, but can we be more verbose here?
[snip]
Just to give everyone who hasn't checked the commits an idea of the
verbosity that those commit messages has.
Is it too verbose? I was trying to add some more detailed info because
from my experience even though the patch seems to be clear now, when
looking at it one year later I often feel like "what does the hell the
patch do?" and "why did I write something like that?". But if it's the
preferred way I can move the explanation into the merge comment on
github.
Nope, it's fine IMO -- and I think Matthew quoted them just to tell
Frank that despite the unclear merge message the commits themselves were
well explained.
Correct, they had some *really* good commit messages. The only problem
was with my "default" merge messages I think.
By the way, because the patches I submitted weren't related in any
way, I think they could have been rebased on top of master instead of
doing merge.
Agreed, I prefer not to see merges where there's no relation between
several (2+) commits.
I guess I did it like that because it was a single pull request. I'll
ask in the future when I'm not sure.
Cheers,
Matthew Brush
_______________________________________________
Geany-devel mailing list
Geany-devel@uvena.de
https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
