Re: [PATCH 1/2] apply: guard against renames of non-existant empty files

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



From: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxxx>
On 25/02/2017 12:59, Philip Oakley wrote:
From: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxxx>
If we have a patch like the one in the new test-case, then we will

"the one in the new test-case" needs a clearer reference to the
particular case so that future readers will know what it refers to.
Noticed while browsing the commit message..

There is only one testcase added by this patch, so how is it possibly
unclear? In what situation would you read a commit message and not even
think to glance at the patch for more details?

On initial reading of a commit message, the expectation is that the commit will be about a change from some previous state, so I immediately asked myself, where is that new (recent) test case from.

You could say "This patch presents a new test case" which would straight away set the expectation that one should read on to see what its about. It was just that as a reader of the log message I didn't pick up the sense you wanted to convey. It's easy to see with hindsight or fore-knowledge.

I, personally, think that bringing the AFL discovery to the fore would help in explaining why/how the patch appeared in the first place.

Hope that helps explain why I responded.

regards

Philip



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]