Date: Wed Jun 20 06:58:35 2012
Was [Re: svn commit: r1351948 -
/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/sd/source/core/CustomAnimationEffect.cxx]
New Revision: 1351948
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1351948&view=rev
Log:
for #119951#
Recently there have been three commits with great fixes but with the
problem that the log message was way too short: In my opinion just
mentioning the issue number in the commit message makes following the
progress of code unnecessarily difficult. I suggest to provide at least
a rough idea on why something was changed in the summary, e.g.
#i119951# fix the animation effect of a shape when it has been grouped
would have been much better IMHO.
Not having a self-sustaining commit message reduces the quality of the
repository. Adding a bit of redundancy also prevents that a typo such as
transposed digits makes it almost impossible to understand why a change
was done.
I also suggest to mention the issue tracker when referring to an issue
number. In the history of the OOo project there were already three
different bug-trackers were used. E.g. "issuetracker" that has been
migrated to our bugzilla instance was referred to by the 'i' before the
bug number such as #i123456#. Other projects in our ecosystem use
similar conventions such as #fdo12345#. If we want to be good citizens
in this ecosystem then we should not be egocentric by working as if
there are no other trackers and there never have been other trackers.
What do others think?
Herbert
