Hi Junio, On Wed, 10 May 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ramsay Jones <[email protected]> writes: > > > Yeah, I had a similar comment in the commit message (but much more > > verbose than your concise addition above), but I edited it several > > times, without finding a wording that I liked. I eventually removed > > it, because it didn't really add any value. :( > > I tend to agree that the proposed additional comment does not add much > value. It assures the readers that we (at the time of applying this > patch) know that the earlier use of ULL was not done with a good reason > but was merely an accident, and strengthens the claim that this is a > good change, but the correctness of the change is already obvious, and > the readers would understand without being explained where the > incorrectness we have to fix with this patch came from, I would think. Future me would find that comment in the commit message very clarifying, though: why was that code there? Ah, that's why. Now I have to dig through the mailing list to find out. Ciao, Dscho
