On Monday 13 September 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 03:14:25PM CEST:
> > Subject: [PATCH] Fix regression in test `colon4.test'.
> >
> > * tests/colon4.test: Fix botched editing to `configure.in'
> > that made the test useless. Since we are at it, improve
> > comments and make grepping of generated Makefile.in slighty
> > stricter.
> > Regression introduced by change "Modernize, improve and/or
> > extend tests `colon*.test" (Stefano Lattarini, 2010-08-08).
>
> If you refer to older commits, you can just do that with the string
> generated by 'git describe' rather than the summary line of the
> change, or the author.
But I think it's better to keep the content of the ChangeLog
self-contained in this respect, if possible. After all, if
someone has access to the git repository, he can just look up
what the parent commit of the bug-fixing commit is, and voila,
he knows what the bug-introducing commit is. And if he has no
access to the git repository, well, the string provided by
`git describe' is useless anyway.
> That is more precise,
And the *real* git log is still more precise ;-)
> and it avoids blaming authors that way.
IMHO it's quite clear that there's no blaming involved, it's
just an explicit statement of a factual truth ("the change
such-and-such introduced this bug").
> Feel free to add this to HACKING if you like.
Given my considerations above, I'd rather not. But this is mostly
a bike-shedding question IMO, so you are certaninly free to add it
to HACKING if *you* like ;-). Once (and if) there is an explicit
policy on this matter in place, I'll abide by it.
Regards,
Stefano
