From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 08:28:22 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Re-roll rr/revert-cherry-pick
Message-ID: <20111207082822.GH11737@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <20111207081734.GG11737@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net>

Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> Fine.  But I would like to know which case they fell into, so I can
> learn in order to do a better job reviewing the future and know my
                                             ^in
> time is well spent.

Sorry for the nonsense. :)  And now that I look back over previous
revisions of the patches, I see that I _hadn't_ clearly complained
about the same aspects of these particular commit messages before.
So what am I talking about here?

I guess it is just a pattern: commit messages I have looked at in the
sequencer series lately seem to focus too much on implementation
details and not enough on the "big picture" of what the user or
internal API user will experience.  One symptom is that I get lost in
reading the commit message without looking at the patch.  Another
symptom is that the commit messages tend to mention the particular
(private) functions that were changed, instead of the more prominent
(often public) callers that the reader might have cause to call.

Hoping that clarifies a little,
Jonathan