Hi,
On 21.06.2012 08:36, Herbert Duerr wrote:
Date: Wed Jun 20 06:58:35 2012
Was [Re: svn commit: r1351948 -
/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/sd/source/core/CustomAnimationEffect.cxx]
New Revision: 1351948
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1351948&view=rev
Log:
for #119951#
Recently there have been three commits with great fixes but with the problem
that the log message was way too short: In my opinion just mentioning the issue
number in the commit message makes following the progress of code unnecessarily
difficult. I suggest to provide at least a rough idea on why something was
changed in the summary, e.g.
#i119951# fix the animation effect of a shape when it has been grouped
would have been much better IMHO.
I agree here.
Not having a self-sustaining commit message reduces the quality of the
repository. Adding a bit of redundancy also prevents that a typo such as
transposed digits makes it almost impossible to understand why a change was
done.
That is right. I had made a couple of these typos in the past and additional
existing text help in these cases a lot.
I also suggest to mention the issue tracker when referring to an issue number.
In the history of the OOo project there were already three different
bug-trackers were used. E.g. "issuetracker" that has been migrated to our
bugzilla instance was referred to by the 'i' before the bug number such as
#i123456#. Other projects in our ecosystem use similar conventions such as
#fdo12345#. If we want to be good citizens in this ecosystem then we should not
be egocentric by working as if there are no other trackers and there never have
been other trackers.
What do others think?
As AOO Bugzilla is our intrinsic issue database, I am in favor to mark issue
numbers from this issue database without any further letters, e.g. #119951#.
In case it is needed to reference other issue databases an identification of
these other issue databases makes sense from my point of view.
Best regards, Oliver.
