> Yeah, it's a difference of methodologies. I prefer the alternate method > of providing detailed descriptions in source control commits of what has > changed, and mentioning the bug number if there happens to be one. I > find it very frustrating to see a commit message that simply says, > "Fixed bug #42" without any indication of what was done, and having to > then go look at the bug report to see the explanation that should, IMO, > have been in the commit message itself. I understand that others prefer > this (more complicated) method. I'll have to learn to live with it. :-)
"Fixed bug" is a bad commit message, with or without bug number. I think it's ok to rely on the context given by the bug so you don't have to re-state it with every commit, be it intermediate or final. But the commit message should always contain a substantial description (unless the commit is non-substantial in nature). I seems that people just pointing to the bug in their commits also don't update the bug with meaningful comments either. So it's the old problem of not documenting changes at all, and has little to do with using bugzilla or not. But at least "Fixed bug #42" allows people to relate a change to a bug description, which was not possible with "Fixed bug". So I consider this a win :). T. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
