Differences between revisions 4 and 5
Revision 4 as of 2005-08-26 01:31:59
Size: 1360
Editor: waste
Comment:
Revision 5 as of 2005-08-26 01:33:54
Size: 1352
Editor: waste
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 16: Line 16:
  Implemented using the McWhirly/O'Blivet technique.  Implemented using the McWhirly/O'Blivet technique.
Line 18: Line 18:
  Displays correctly on the twelfth of every month,
  but doesn't yet work during the other 27-30 days.
 Displays correctly on the twelfth of every month,
 but doesn't yet work during the other 27-30 days.
Line 32: Line 32:
  McWhirly/O'Blivet scheme for envolvolution of the subducted
  whingnangle. See McWhirly, O'Blivet, "Acta Exsanguinata", vol. III,
  chap. 19 for a concise description of the technique, unless you can't
  find the chapter because someone has razored it out and papered it to
  the walls of their cube.
 McWhirly/O'Blivet scheme for envolvolution of the subducted
 whingnangle. See McWhirly, O'Blivet, "Acta Exsanguinata", vol. III,
 chap. 19 for a concise description of the technique, unless you can't
 find the chapter because someone has razored it out and papered it to
 the walls of their cube.

Writing good changeset comments

Many ["Mercurial"] tools use the first line of a ChangeSet comment as a short-form description of the ChangeSet.

You should thus treat the first line like the subject line of an email message. It should:

  • stand alone,
  • be less than 65 characters long, and
  • give a quick idea of the content of the ChangeSet.

Here is an example of a good ChangeSet comment:

 First stab at the veeblefrotzer subsystem

 Implemented using the McWhirly/O'Blivet technique.

 Displays correctly on the twelfth of every month,
 but doesn't yet work during the other 27-30 days.

This has a few things going for it:

  • The first line succinctly describes the change.
  • The entire comment is short and informative.
  • It mentions known shortcomings.

Here's a bad example:

 Implemented the veeblefrotzer subsystem, which uses the
 McWhirly/O'Blivet scheme for envolvolution of the subducted
 whingnangle.  See McWhirly, O'Blivet, "Acta Exsanguinata", vol. III,
 chap. 19 for a concise description of the technique, unless you can't
 find the chapter because someone has razored it out and papered it to
 the walls of their cube.

What's so bad about it?

  • First line doesn't stand alone
  • No paragraph breaks -> poor readability

  • Loads of uninformative detail

ChangeSetComments (last edited 2013-01-24 04:46:17 by rcl)