> On Nov 13, 2014, at 10:32 AM, jing...@apple.com wrote: > >> >> On Nov 13, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Sean Callanan <scalla...@apple.com >> <mailto:scalla...@apple.com>> wrote: >> >> Zachary might be referring to commits like 221850. >> >> "Do not override the existing definition of addr_size when adding new >> properties to SBTarget. Fixes rdar://18963842 <rdar://18963842>” > > I see nothing wrong with the content of that comment. It's clear that it > means "addr_size" was changed to mean something it shouldn't mean. The > details in the Radar are "addr_size no longer returns the correct value." > which was obvious from the fact that it's definition was changed and didn't > add any more detail. So saying more about it wouldn't have helped. >
+1 - the patch seemed trivial and obvious enough that a few words suffice to explain it, regardless of radar > I wouldn't put "Fixes rdar//whatever" in the comment, that does seem like > it's dangling candy just out of reach. I like having the radar number somewhere in there, but as you say... > I always just put the radar number at the bottom of the comment since it is > useful when you get another Radar reporting the same problem and internally > we want to dup the two, but it makes it clear it isn't a vital piece of info. > If that is a better modus operandi by community consensus, sure works for me > But other than that the comment should stand on its own. > > Jim > > > >> >> It’s not immediately clear from that message what the original issue here >> was: a problem with 220372 where addr_size was erroneously repurposed to >> mean “size of a target byte in host bytes” where it had a different meaning >> (“size of a target address in bytes”) originally. >> >> Sean >> >>> On Nov 13, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Greg Clayton <gclay...@apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> We strip the actual title from the radar, but we do describe what is being >>> fixed in each commit message. So you aren't missing any info. >>> >>>> On Nov 12, 2014, at 5:47 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Would it be possible, when referencing a rdar bug in a commit message, to >>>> additionally provide a brief description of the bug that it fixes? Those >>>> of us without access to rdar don't have any insight into what the patches >>>> are fixing. >>>> >>>> I understand this may not be possible when the bugs are related to issues >>>> that are not public information, but wherever possible I think this would >>>> benefit all of the non Apple people. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> lldb-dev mailing list >>>> lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu >>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lldb-dev mailing list >>> lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lldb-dev mailing list >> lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev> Thanks, - Enrico 📩 egranata@.com ☎️ 27683
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
