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

From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: Feb 25, 2017, 12:53 UTC
Message-ID: <36746FDD909546E29F39F1040810DA17@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To: <0cdd4304-7b71-c38d-21ab-b4e997242bd4@oracle.com>

From: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>

Show 12 quoted lines

> On 25/02/2017 12:59, Philip Oakley wrote:
>> From: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>
>>> 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