> On 27. May 2020, at 11:24, Florian Dold <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 5/27/20 2:46 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> Here, a message of "fix #1234" is NOT sufficient. >> I have done so myself and have found ~50 in the current log since 0.12.1. >> Those are not useful messages. Having to do to mantis to check the changes >> meaning >> is quite annoying. Especially if the fix is not detailed in the bug report >> itself. >> The commit message should explain the _change_. The bugreport should >> document the _reason_. > > Yeah, that's a really good point. > > Makes sense to prioritize the needs of people who'll read the change log > over the committer who'll have to spend ten more seconds copy&pasting > the bug title!
Yes. But it is more than that. The bug title may be "gnunet-identity crashes when used with special characters". But the commit message should _probably_ read: "Sanitize input to gnunet-identity. Fix #1234" Not all bug reports are formulated as a solution. I would even go so far as only a developer could even create such a title. A user report is unlikely to have a solution, only document a problem. BR > > - Florian >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
