On 06/03/2012 04:51 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
This commit is one of many similar commits that have been made over the last three months. There was a Mini-language overhaul discussion on the dev mailing list.
Sure, I know there was a discussion. But 2 years from now, when someone is looking at svn history, how will they know that? There is no mailing list url(which is *not* what should be done, as list aggregators come and go; a message-id tho is fine, as it doesn't matter which aggregator is used), no issue#(sometimes those come and go, so a full url is also not recommended). You can reference nearby commits in the history, without using an exact revision number, but it's generally not that great to mention far-away commits, except by number.
Even then, using revision numbers is also not the best thing, as sometimes the repo format can switch(think cvs->svn that ofbiz did, or even changing repo hosters(svn.ofbiz.org->svn.apache.org)). And there could even be a switch to git or something else in the future.
So, really, no matter what external discussion occurred, in an issue system, on a mailing list, or by the water cooler, the commit itself should be described when it is done.
