Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2016 Archives by date, by thread · List index




I disagree here. In many cases I think it is wrong to simply repeat the bug title in the commit 
message of the commit that (partly or wholly) fixes the bug. Instead the commit message should 
say what the commit does. That it fixes a specific bug is just a side-effect, a note.

I might be wrong, but I do not think there is much of a disagreement. I did on purpose not write 
<title> but "what was the problem", hoping to see a developer sentence describing the problem.

I think it is important that the total commit message contains both why (was this solved) and what 
(was changed). Just reading the "what" will make me wonder why was it changed.

Also (this is also personal preference, and might be just bike-shedding) a commit message should 
be in present tense. It should say what the change *does*. Not what it "did". 

We are at least 2 with that preference, I updated the commit message:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/GetInvolved#4._Submit_the_patch

 I personally also don't see the usefulness in putting the "module" name as a prefix on the 
commit message. But I know that many esteemed colleagues disagree.
I will leave this part open :-)

jan i.

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.