Descriptive subjects

Descriptive subjects

[Gary Benson]

Hi all,

May I ask that people send emails to this list with more descriptive
subjects than, e.g., "Fix PR/12345".  The numbers don't stick in my
head even after I've seen them 20 times, so I have to look in all
these emails to determine whether I need to read them.  I'm sure I'm
not alone.

Just a friendly reminder, my intention isn't to shame anyone!

Thanks,
Gary

-- 
http://gbenson.net/

Re: Descriptive subjects

[Pedro Alves]

On 05/15/2015 08:59 AM, Gary Benson wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> May I ask that people send emails to this list with more descriptive
> subjects than, e.g., "Fix PR/12345".  The numbers don't stick in my
> head even after I've seen them 20 times, so I have to look in all
> these emails to determine whether I need to read them.  I'm sure I'm
> not alone.

Agreed.

> 
> Just a friendly reminder, my intention isn't to shame anyone!

Thanks,
Pedro Alves

Re: Descriptive subjects

[Joel Brobecker]

> > May I ask that people send emails to this list with more descriptive
> > subjects than, e.g., "Fix PR/12345".  The numbers don't stick in my
> > head even after I've seen them 20 times, so I have to look in all
> > these emails to determine whether I need to read them.  I'm sure I'm
> > not alone.
> 
> Agreed.

+1. In fact, I would even suggest that we follow that guideline
for revision logs as well. When going through the log trying to
identify the commits that might be responsible for a change in
behavior, "PR bla/12345" is not very helpful for that.

-- 
Joel

Re: Descriptive subjects

[Patrick Palka]

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> May I ask that people send emails to this list with more descriptive
> subjects than, e.g., "Fix PR/12345".  The numbers don't stick in my
> head even after I've seen them 20 times, so I have to look in all
> these emails to determine whether I need to read them.  I'm sure I'm
> not alone.
>
> Just a friendly reminder, my intention isn't to shame anyone!

Okay, I will make my subjects more descriptive from now on.  Many GDB
PRs are not very descriptive since they have "gdb" as their component
instead of something more specific like "cli" or "tui".

Re: Descriptive subjects

[Doug Evans]

I'll

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> May I ask that people send emails to this list with more descriptive
> subjects than, e.g., "Fix PR/12345".  The numbers don't stick in my
> head even after I've seen them 20 times, so I have to look in all
> these emails to determine whether I need to read them.  I'm sure I'm
> not alone.
>
> Just a friendly reminder, my intention isn't to shame anyone!
>
> Thanks,
> Gary
>
> --
> http://gbenson.net/

Re: Descriptive subjects

[Doug Evans]

dagnabit, typing with a cast is, umm, problematic.

I'll entrust you to update
https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ContributionChecklist
appropriately.



On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> I'll
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> May I ask that people send emails to this list with more descriptive
>> subjects than, e.g., "Fix PR/12345".  The numbers don't stick in my
>> head even after I've seen them 20 times, so I have to look in all
>> these emails to determine whether I need to read them.  I'm sure I'm
>> not alone.
>>
>> Just a friendly reminder, my intention isn't to shame anyone!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> http://gbenson.net/

Re: Descriptive subjects

[Joel Brobecker]

> +1. In fact, I would even suggest that we follow that guideline
> for revision logs as well. When going through the log trying to
> identify the commits that might be responsible for a change in
> behavior, "PR bla/12345" is not very helpful for that.

Something that occured to me a little after I sent the email:
I suspect that using the PR's subject would often work as a good
subject for the commit.

-- 
Joel

Re: Descriptive subjects

[Gary Benson]

Ok, I did it.

Doug Evans wrote:
> dagnabit, typing with a cast is, umm, problematic.
> 
> I'll entrust you to update
> https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ContributionChecklist
> appropriately.
> 
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> > I'll
> >
> > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > May I ask that people send emails to this list with more descriptive
> > > subjects than, e.g., "Fix PR/12345".  The numbers don't stick in my
> > > head even after I've seen them 20 times, so I have to look in all
> > > these emails to determine whether I need to read them.  I'm sure I'm
> > > not alone.
> > >
> > > Just a friendly reminder, my intention isn't to shame anyone!
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://gbenson.net/

Re: Descriptive subjects

[Doug Evans]

Awesome, thanks.

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com> wrote:
> Ok, I did it.
>
> Doug Evans wrote:
>> dagnabit, typing with a cast is, umm, problematic.
>>
>> I'll entrust you to update
>> https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ContributionChecklist
>> appropriately.
>>
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
>> > I'll
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > May I ask that people send emails to this list with more descriptive
>> > > subjects than, e.g., "Fix PR/12345".  The numbers don't stick in my
>> > > head even after I've seen them 20 times, so I have to look in all
>> > > these emails to determine whether I need to read them.  I'm sure I'm
>> > > not alone.
>> > >
>> > > Just a friendly reminder, my intention isn't to shame anyone!
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Gary
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > http://gbenson.net/