bug-standards
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: How much explanation to include in change descriptions


From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: How much explanation to include in change descriptions
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 22:09:52 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0

Richard Stallman wrote:
   > > It is useful to include a reference to the bug data base.
   > > But don't omit anything on the assumption that people have access to
   > > that data base.

   > That's asking for too much, and in practice developers typically don't do 
what's
   > being asked for. Many bug reports are complex, and one must read them 
carefully
   > to understand the bugs. We can't reasonably ask developers to write and 
read
   > commit messages containing every detail of every report of a bug that was 
fixed.
   > On the contrary: the GNU bug database is a useful tool for simplifying
   > maintenance, and we should take advantage of it when that is a win.

I don't follow the response -- I have a feeling we are
miscommunicating somehow.

I interpreted your advice to mean that every detail of a bug report that could ever possibly be of interest to a maintainer should be described or explained in the ChangeLog entry (or commit message) for its fix. This would cause ChangeLogs to contain clutter that is likely to cause more trouble than it's worth. Commit messages should focus on why the change was made; if this focus is aided by citing a bug number rather than listing only-mildly-relevant details about the bug, then that is a win.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]