On 12.06.2018 11:51, matthew green wrote: >> On 12.06.2018 10:28, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>> On 12.06.2018 09:04, Martin Husemann wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 05:47:35AM +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote: >>>>> To sum it up, out of 30+ lines of the commit message, the relevant >>>>> information is contained only in (part of) one line. >>>> >>>> FWIW, I fully agree with uwe here. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> >>> I find keeping reproducers for issues very useful. Keeping track of them >>> helps to check whether fixes are functional. >>> >>> Also introduction of refactoring without a note in the message is not >>> acceptable in my opinion. >>> >>> Thanks to the verbose message people have the whole context. >> >> To be clear, I will keep introducing fixes in the same form. I'm >> catching e.g. bugs in programs only in specific usage and input. If I >> will refactor something I will keep including it in messages too. > > that's a pity. > > i don't mind having a little more detail that uwe is talking > about, but i don't think we need nearly as much. it's worth > mentioning the sanitizer used as the finding-tool, but there > is no need to repeat the basic fix 3 times, or to reproduce > the code change itself. > > please reconsider and use a shorter form. >
I will keep messages within 20 lines.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
