On 12.06.2018 14:24, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:00:01PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> On 12.06.2018 11:51, matthew green wrote: >>>> On 12.06.2018 10:28, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>>>> On 12.06.2018 09:04, Martin Husemann wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 05:47:35AM +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote: >>>>>>> To sum it up, out of 30+ lines of the commit message, the relevant >>>>>>> information is contained only in (part of) one line. >>>>>> >>>>>> FWIW, I fully agree with uwe here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>> I find keeping reproducers for issues very useful. Keeping track of them >>>>> helps to check whether fixes are functional. >>>>> >>>>> Also introduction of refactoring without a note in the message is not >>>>> acceptable in my opinion. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks to the verbose message people have the whole context. >>>> >>>> To be clear, I will keep introducing fixes in the same form. I'm >>>> catching e.g. bugs in programs only in specific usage and input. If I >>>> will refactor something I will keep including it in messages too. >>> >>> that's a pity. >>> >>> i don't mind having a little more detail that uwe is talking >>> about, but i don't think we need nearly as much. it's worth >>> mentioning the sanitizer used as the finding-tool, but there >>> is no need to repeat the basic fix 3 times, or to reproduce >>> the code change itself. >>> >>> please reconsider and use a shorter form. >>> >> >> I will keep messages within 20 lines. > > That's missing the point. A short description of why the specific > undefined behavior is seen is useful. Pasting random program output is > not. > > Joerg > Random program output might not be useful, but the one containing runtime message is.. and it was 1-liner + 1 line how to invoke it and 1 line of runtime error. I have more to come an I will keep documenting the runtime error messages.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature