On Mar 15, 07 13:39:55 -0400, Joe Shaw wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:17 +0100, Juergen Weigert wrote:
Good point. Mandatory comments are counter productive.
If comments are mandatory, they will be more often at the bullshit end of the spectrum than not. With a high noise level around it, even the good comments become useless. So -- let us fight against those comments, that repeat just the obvious.
To me, this whole discussion highlights the necessity of having a revision control system underlying a build system, at least for things like spec files.
The revision control system that we have under autobuild is an essential feature. It presents us with all the who, when, what history information needed to track down issues. My point is: Mechanisms to ensure good quality comments are all nontrivial.
If the spec file itself doesn't have a comment, or has a confusing one, you would hope that the commit message does. Failing that, you at least know who made the change and when, so you can confront them. :) Plus you'll be able to narrow down when the problem was introduced and revert only that single part.
Correct. And we would not want to do without these mechanisms. Anyway, I do not see, what the benefits of additional commit log messages could be. Increased quantity of mandatory comment fields usually degrades quality. cheers, Jw. -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de wide open suse_/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (____/ /\ (/) | __________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org