On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:46:53PM -0500, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > > I review a large number of patches on a typical day, and usually I have > to > > spend a fair amount of time to just understand what the patch is doing. > As > > the patch author, you can do a lot to help make this easier by *writing > > better commit messages*. Starting now, I'm going to try out a new > practice > > for a while: I'm going to first review the commit message of all patches, > > and if I can't understand what the patch does by reading the commit > message > > before reading any of the code, I'll r- and ask for another version of > the > > patch. > > Sometimes, the commit message does explain what it does in a sufficient > manner, but finding out why requires reading the bug, assuming it's > written there. I think this information should also be in the commit > message. (Just continuing the thread here.) Personally I prefer looking at the bug for the full context and single point of truth. Also, security bugs typically can't have extensive commit messages and moving a lot of context to commit messages might paint a target on security patches. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
