On 6/21/12 9:39 AM, Wang Zhe wrote: > Sure, I agree with Herbert. We need some basic and rough comment for the > code change, then others could review it much easier. > 2012/6/21 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <orwittm...@googlemail.com> >
We have already introduced the Patch by, Review By .. fields for adding further information. How about logs like #### <issuenumber>: <issue subject line> fix: <short description/summary> (on demand only) Patch By: Suggest By: Found by: Reviewed By: #### A common notation used by all would be of course helpful Juergen >> 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<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. >> >
