On 25 July 2013 16:09, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: > In this case, since the very fact that there was an > interface/implementation dichotomy was a brand new thing, does it really > matter?
If the SVN history is to be useful, it should ideally be readable without needing all the context. i.e. when someone is reviewing the SVN history it won't be obvious that the change is new. I see the log message as performing two main functions: - documenting why the commit was performed, so readers of the commit message can determine if the change looks good - providing a quick way to navigate changes without needing to do perform diffs between versions. Obviously it's not a huge deal - in theory since the ASF releases source (and not SVN history) all SVN log messages are irrelevant - but it does help current developers and future maintainers if the log messages describe the commit accurately. > Matt > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:57 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 25 July 2013 12:56, <ma...@apache.org> wrote: >> > Author: markt >> > Date: Thu Jul 25 11:56:41 2013 >> > New Revision: 1506916 >> > >> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1506916 >> > Log: >> > Change name of implementation class >> >> from? to? >> >> Yes, this can be derived from the history, but it would be easier to >> read the log if a few more details were provided please. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
