> I disagree here. In many cases I think it is wrong to simply repeat the bug
> title in the commit message of the commit that (partly or wholly) fixes the
> bug. Instead the commit message should say what the commit does. That it
> fixes a specific bug is just a side-effect, a note.
I might be wrong, but I do not think there is much of a disagreement. I did on
purpose not write <title> but "what was the problem", hoping to see a developer
sentence describing the problem.
I think it is important that the total commit message contains both why (was
this solved) and what (was changed). Just reading the "what" will make me
wonder why was it changed.
> Also (this is also personal preference, and might be just bike-shedding) a
> commit message should be in present tense. It should say what the change
> *does*. Not what it "did".
We are at least 2 with that preference, I updated the commit message:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/GetInvolved#4._Submit_the_patch
> I personally also don't see the usefulness in putting the "module" name as a
> prefix on the commit message. But I know that many esteemed colleagues
> disagree.
I will leave this part open :-)
jan i.
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
