02.07.2009, в 18:05, Adam Roben написал(а):
- I prefer having "Bug NNNNN: " before the actual bug description
so I don't have to parse the URL myself for the bug number. It
also acts as a visual marker when I read the ChangeLog entry.
<...>
Here's an example entry that follows the format that I (and I think
Dave) like:
+2009-04-20 Adam Roben <aro...@apple.com>
+
+ Change MemoryStream::createInstance to return a COMPtr
+
+ Part of Bug 25294: All WebKit/win classes should return
COMPtrs from
+ their static constructor members
+ <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25294>
FWIW, I rarely need to know the bug number alone - I need its URL to
click or to copy/paste. On the other hand, the suggested format makes
it so that one needs to skip over "Part of Bug 25294: " just to read
the bug description, which is not an improvement.
- I like putting angle brackets "<>" around the URL to set it off
visually from other text.
Typing those brackets is more work. It's also more difficult to copy/
paste the URL (you could just copy the whole line and paste it into
Safari address bar when there were no garbage symbols around the URL)
- I generally move the "Reviewed by" line after the bug number/
description/URL. When you're reading a ChangeLog entry/commit
message (especially an older one), it's generally much more
interesting which bug is being fixed rather than knowing who
reviewed it. (Also, putting the bug description first makes git's
one-line description of each commit much more useful than either
having a list of dates and the person who wrote the patch or having
a list of patch reviewers.)
No strong opinion about this one. It seems natural to have the
reviewer mentioned close to contributor (which is what we have now).
- WBR, Alexey Proskuryakov
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
