Subject: bug#15356: [PATCH 00/19] Fedora parted patches

From: Jim Meyering <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 07:21:55 -0700

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Phillip Susi <[email-masked]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> I find that most comments that get added this way end up being of the
> useless restating the obvious variety.  In the event that some code
> isn't obvious from the general description, either the description
> needs a little more fleshing out, or the code in question deserves a
> good comment in the code instead of a one liner in the commit message.

I agree 100% with the detailed-log->comment sentiment.
Since I often write the ChangeLog last, since it forces me to
reexamine my patch chunk by chunk and to organize the description well
enough to present it, that tends to catch little things that I might
otherwise overlook.

Bottom line: please try to include enough information (the "why"
motivation and/or a test case is easy to forget) to help someone less
familiar than you with the code to decide whether to revert your
change -- and the consequences -- in the event that someday we find
reason to consider that.
The consequences part often ends up in the NEWS entry, so people get
an idea of which bugs have been fixed per release, along with enough
description e.g., to match symptoms.