On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
> On 04/17/2017 08:11 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Ben Kelly wrote:
>>
>> I don't object to people writing longer commit messages, but that
>>> information needs to be in the bug. Our tools today (splin
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On 2017-03-27 3:30 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> 2) We couldn't trigger a libvoikko autoupdate on Windows/Mac if there
>> was a crasher bug in the library. (I'd expect the distros to take care
>> of pushing an update in the Linux case. It's th
On 04/17/2017 08:11 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Ben Kelly wrote:
I don't object to people writing longer commit messages, but that
information needs to be in the bug. Our tools today (splinter and
mozreview) don't do that automatically AFAIK. I think ther
On Monday 2017-04-17 23:20 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 4/17/17 10:45 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > It seems like there is actually not a consensus on this. (I had thought
> > Smaug's view was the consensus, and found bz's post surprising.)
>
> Really? I know where Olli is coming from, but even i
On 4/17/17 10:45 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
It seems like there is actually not a consensus on this. (I had thought
Smaug's view was the consensus, and found bz's post surprising.)
Really? I know where Olli is coming from, but even in his view a commit
message like the one I was talking about is n
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Ben Kelly wrote:
> FWIW I agree with Olli. I look for a good one line summary of the change,
> but beyond that I find you really do need to look at the bug to get the
> full context.
>
Huh, interesting. Thanks for the data point.
> I don't object to people wr
It seems like there is actually not a consensus on this. (I had thought
Smaug's view was the consensus, and found bz's post surprising.)
Both approaches have tradeoffs. There's a good reason we require the bug
number front and center in a commit message. But I dare you to read the Web
Replay bug <
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> > That is why we have links to the bug. Bug should always be the unite of
> > truth telling
> > why some change was done. Bugs tend to have so much more context about
> the
> > change than any individual commit message can or should ha
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:58 AM, smaug wrote:
>
> That is why we have links to the bug. Bug should always be the unite of
> truth telling
> why some change was done. Bugs tend to have so much more context about the
> change than any individual commit message can or should have.
>
With all due re
On 04/18/2017 03:12 AM, gsquel...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 11:58:11 AM UTC+12, smaug wrote:
On 04/18/2017 02:36 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, smaug wrote:
On 04/17/2017 06:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
A quick reminder to patch authors and
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 5:12 PM, wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 11:58:11 AM UTC+12, smaug wrote:
> > On 04/18/2017 02:36 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, smaug wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 04/17/2017 06:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> A quick reminder
On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 11:58:11 AM UTC+12, smaug wrote:
> On 04/18/2017 02:36 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, smaug wrote:
> >
> >> On 04/17/2017 06:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> >>
> >>> A quick reminder to patch authors and reviewers.
> >>>
> >>> Changesets s
On 04/18/2017 02:36 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, smaug wrote:
On 04/17/2017 06:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
A quick reminder to patch authors and reviewers.
Changesets should have commit messages. The commit message should
describe not just the "what" of the cha
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, smaug wrote:
> On 04/17/2017 06:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>> A quick reminder to patch authors and reviewers.
>>
>> Changesets should have commit messages. The commit message should
>> describe not just the "what" of the change but also the "why". This is
>>
On 04/17/2017 06:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
A quick reminder to patch authors and reviewers.
Changesets should have commit messages. The commit message should describe not just the
"what" of the change but also the "why". This is especially
true in cases when the "what" is obvious from the d
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> A quick reminder to patch authors and reviewers.
>
> Changesets should have commit messages. The commit message should
> describe not just the "what" of the change but also the "why". This is
> especially true in cases when the "what" is o
On 17/04/17 16:41, David Major wrote:
I'd like to add to this a reminder that commit messages should describe
the _change_ and not the _symptom_. In other words, "Bug XYZ: Crash at
Foo::Bar" is not a good summary.
An unfortunate pattern I see is non-descriptive commit messages for
tests, which
I'd like to add to this a reminder that commit messages should describe
the _change_ and not the _symptom_. In other words, "Bug XYZ: Crash at
Foo::Bar" is not a good summary.
This is implied by what Boris said, but I've seen enough of these on my
pulsebot backscroll that it's worth mentioning exp
A quick reminder to patch authors and reviewers.
Changesets should have commit messages. The commit message should
describe not just the "what" of the change but also the "why". This is
especially true in cases when the "what" is obvious from the diff
anyway; for larger changes it makes sens
19 matches
Mail list logo
