Everyone remember this fun thread :-). I'm plowing through a boat load
of checkin comments made over the past couple months, and am seeing way
too much of this stuff.
Please provide more detailed checkins comments than a bug number and
review/approval chain.
Jud
Simon Fraser wrote:
>I see a number of checkins today that have comments of the form:
>
> Fix for bug 12345. r=foopy, sr=bazz
>
>This is not acceptable. Checkin comments are not (just) so that
>people can click links on Tinderbox and see what you did today
>or yesterday, and click on a link to get to a bugzilla bug.
>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, in a way that makes sense without resorting
>to looking in Bugzilla.
>
>How are we to encourage good checkin comments? Should part of
>the review/super-review process include a review of the proposed
>checkin comments? Or is a periodic knuckle-rapping, like this one,
>sufficient?
>
>Simon
>
