incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Herbert Duerr <...@apache.org>
Subject Commit message summaries
Date Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:36:55 GMT
> 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.

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.

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?

Herbert

Mime
View raw message