On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:00:01PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > 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.
That's missing the point. A short description of why the specific undefined behavior is seen is useful. Pasting random program output is not. Joerg