[FFmpeg-cvslog] r12972 - trunk/libavformat/mov.c

[Ivan Kalvachev]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Reimar D?ffinger
<Reimar.Doeffinger at stud.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 07:37:00PM +0200, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>  > Diego Biurrun wrote:
>
> > > Just adding something like "update comment:" to your commit message
>  > > would do wonders.
>  >
>  > And here I again don't agree with you, if I would adopt your idea,
>  > adding only "update comment:" is clearly not sufficient because it does
>  > not illustrate the removed comment.
>
>  An "update comment:" has two advantages:
>  1) I know it is only "cosmetic", so if I have little time I might not
>  even bother reading the patch
>  2) When reading the patch I know I have to look to the right of the line
>  for changes.
>
>
>  > The diff with the commit message are clearly explicit, repeating the
>  > diff is useless and waste of bytes/network traffic ;)
>
>  Well, IMO as it is the commit message is a waste of (whatever). Just a
>  "." as commit message would have been no worse, actually maybe less
>  confusing because it would have been one less thing to read and
>  understand.

When I write commit messages I try to answer two questions:
What and Why?
(Where and When are obvious from the diff and from the commit number and date)

In this case I'd put comment like (not actual correct message!):
"add 'fixme' comment to remind me about the mp4 case"

What: Add 'fixme' comment
Why: To remind me about the mp4 case

The _What_ part is useful when you look at many log messages without
seeing the diff for each one of them. In that case you'd know what
this commit is supposed to do. Usually keywords like
add/remove/delete/fix/enable/disable <something> is sufficient.

The _Why_ part is useful when you look at the code and wonder why it
have been done at all, or why it have been done this way and not the
other way around..

Well, this is what I try to do. But that's not enough for Diego either ;)