Re: [PATCH] Issue 1628

kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> When there are only little nits left, I think it is our usual practice
> to both commit the patch (making the tweaks ourselves) *and* tell the
> original submitter what needed to be changed, so he knows for next
> time.
>
> But fixing up a log message can actually be rather laborious. You
> have to apply the patch, then go into the source code, figure out an
> English description of each change, and write it up. Don't be
> surprised when we bounce that back to the submitter, who can do it a
> lot faster. We rely on that sort of parallelization; without it,
> every maintainer's time would be taken up with patch and log message
> adjustment.

I agree about the log message. That's why I rewrote it to include the
modified functions.

But you should also consider that before someone actually commits a
patch, it should be reviewed. And with a good review, one should be able
to adjust the log message easily.

 From my point of view, if you can't write a log message for a patch,
you shouldn't commit it because you don't understand it well enough.

Sure, for patches sent for TSVN I sure like to have a log message with
the patch. But if there's no log message I just write one myself.

Stefan

-- 
        ___
   oo  // \\      "De Chelonian Mobile"
  (_,\/ \_/ \     TortoiseSVN
    \ \_/_\_/>    The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
    /_/   \_\     http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org