Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
> > The HACKING file says it best, so I'll just quote:
> >
> > One should never need the log entries to understand the current
> > code. If you find yourself writing a significant explanation in
> > the log, you should consider carefully whether your text doesn't
> > actually belong in a comment, alongside the code it explains.
>
> Oops, you're right, sorry for being so verbose.
>
> I often get annoyed when I see a log message that has nothing but a
> list of file/symbol change descriptions, and is missing a "one
> sentence summary" at the top. I want to know the general intent of
> the patch *before* reading about particular changes to symbols.
>
> But my great weakness is to go too far in the other direction. My
> one-sentence summary ends up being an essay. :-(
>
> There's no need to put my log msg in the code. The code is obvious.
> My verbiage is nothing but a feature description, better moved to the
> Handbook... which I'll do.
Speaking of being verbose... ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 6 17:24:49 2002