From: Philip Oakley Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 12:53:36 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] apply: guard against renames of non-existant empty files Message-ID: <36746FDD909546E29F39F1040810DA17@PhilipOakley> In-Reply-To: <0cdd4304-7b71-c38d-21ab-b4e997242bd4@oracle.com> From: "Vegard Nossum" > On 25/02/2017 12:59, Philip Oakley wrote: >> From: "Vegard Nossum" >>> 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