From: Karl Kurbjun <kkurbjun_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:22:39 -0600

On 09/14/2010 03:18 PM, Thomas Martitz wrote:
> On 14.09.2010 22:55, Paul Louden wrote:
>> On 9/14/2010 3:47 PM, Rafaël Carré wrote:
>>> This commit log isn't really much less descriptive than, say, "fix
>>> red", which
>>> seems to be an acceptable commit log though.
>>>
>>> So while I prefer long and descriptive log messages, this particular
>>> log doesn't
>>> really bother me.
>>>
>> So was this a "fix red" commit then? Was it related to a screwup in a
>> previous commit, or entirely unrelated.
>>
>> "Fix red" pretty explicitly tells someone that this is a followup
>> commit to a slightly earlier one that caused build errors. "Grumble"
>> on the other hand leaves me no clue if it was related to something
>> else you did earlier, or not.
>
> I agree, fix red (even if not terribly good either) is a lot better
> than this.
>
> Best regards.

The intent of the commit was clear to me without looking at the diff.

Anyone that knows the language syntax can quickly determine the purpose
of the commit by looking at the diff if it was not clear to them.

Anyone that cares should know the language syntax.

While a more descriptive message is ideal, I do not see a need for a
public discussion about this particular commit. If someone has a
concern with the message I think it would be better handled with a
*polite* private message to the person responsible.

The message does not bother me.

It seems to be nitpicking a minor issue.

-Karl
Received on 2010-09-15