[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> IMO, the getting-cvs-write-access doc implies, perhaps it should be more explicit (another cvs-write-access doc revision anyone :-)) this pre-requisite knowledge.Well, since you are only able to comment a check-in after getting cvs-write-access (I can easily demonstrate this assertion :-) ), I hardly see how it could be a pre-requisite and tested knowledge for getting the privilege...
When I got my cvs-write access some time ago, I had to ask for help one or twice because of the very big differences I was seeing in the tinderbox.
>From "Bazoo ! FIXED ! ; b=12345; a=foo" (no kidding) to very complex messages. The first one made me smile looking at the tinderbox, and that is also a bit of a success. In fact, when I see such a comment, I always take a look at the bug in Bugzilla... See ? It works !-) More seriously, I agree with Simon that some messages should be a little bit more explicit, at least include the summary of the bug, or better, a summary of the fix.
I disagree with removing cvs access for a contributor : a code contribution seems to me much more important than the attached tinderbox comment, and I don't think we have too many contributors.
Last point : Simon, you said :
I think it is impossible : (a) it will make the comments unreadable and useless (people often read the comments to know what feature is fixed/new and not to know the status of a given file) (b) let's have a big bug, 5 different files are touched, you want 5 different comments ? How ?Checkin comments need to say what you did to the file and why. They need to inform on the history of changes that have been made to a file
Just my .02 euros...
</Daniel>
