On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:11 AM, René Scharfe <l....@web.de> wrote:

>> Subject: pull: trivial simplification
>> With that summary, people would have an easier time figuring out if
>> they need to read more about the patch or not.
> "trivial simplification" is too generic; we could have lots of them.

No, we can have only one, otherwise it would say simplificationS.

> A summary should describe the change.

You can never fully describe the change, only the diff does that.

For example "use $curr_branch_short more" does not tell me anything
about the extent of the changes, is it used in one more place? two?
one hundred? Moreover, how exactly is it used more? Is some
refactoring needed?

And it still doesn't answer the most important question any summary
should answer: why? Why use $curr_branch_short more?

> Its low complexity can be derived from
> it -- using an existing variable a bit more is not very exciting.

You didn't say "a bit more" you said "more". And yes, the complexity
can be derived from the summary, but not from this one.

> But I wouldn't call that patch trivial because its correctness depends on
> code outside of its shown context.

Correctness is a separate question from triviality, and the
correctness can only be assessed by looking at the actual patch.

The patch can be both trivial and wrong.

> The reason for the patch isn't mentioned explicitly.  Perhaps it should be.
> I felt that using something that's already there instead of recreating it is
> motivation alone.

Why? Because it simplifies the code. That's the real answer.

Felipe Contreras
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to