Format for JDK 6/7 changeset comments?

[Jeannette Hung]

Perhaps I'm behind on the overall discussion but why is:

 > Other information that is often included in TeamWare putback comments is
 > not appropriate for Mercurial changeset comments.  This includes names of
 > test cases run, links to webrevs, pre-integration test results, approvals
 > from core release teams, etc.  Most of this type of information belongs
 > in the bug database, or possibly in ancillary databases (details TBD).

not appropriate?  I really like seeing that information so it is obvious 
what has been done to verify the fix.  I understand that it may not be 
useful to everyone, but if it can be useful, why restrict this 
information from being here?  Or is this more a matter of what is 
required vs optional?

jeannette

Mark Reinhold wrote:
> Here's a revised proposal that, I think, addresses all the issues that've
> been raised since this discussion started a few weeks ago.
> 
> (Reminder: This proposal is only for the JDK 7 (and eventually JDK 6)
>  code bases; others may adopt different conventions.)
> 
> A single change is described by a block of text of the following form:
> 
>   <bugid>: <synopsis-of-symptom>
>   Summary: <summary-of-code-change>
>   Reviewed-by: <reviewer>+
>   Contributed-by: <contributor-email>
> 
> There can be more than one <bugid> line, but there must be at least one.
> 
> The summary line is optional, but authors are strongly encouraged to
> include one if the nature of the change is not obvious from the synopsis.
> It's just one line, meant to give the reader a clue as to how the code
> changed.  A more complete description of the change belongs in the bug
> report.
> 
> A reviewed-by line is required.  Reviewers must have the ability to deal
> with any adverse consequences of the change, and so must themselves be
> authors.  They're therefore identified by their OpenJDK usernames rather
> than full e-mail addresses.
> 
> The contributed-by line is optional.
> 
> There will be exceptions for merge changesets, tag changesets, etc.
> 
> Example:
> 
>   1234567: NPE thrown on FileInputStream("")
>   Summary: Rewrite precondition-checking code in io.c
>   Reviewed-by: mr
>   Contributed-by: Ben Bitdiddle <ben at bits.org>
> 
> If a changeset contains multiple unrelated changes (this is frowned upon,
> but may happen from time to time) then its comment will contain multiple
> blocks of the above form, separated by blank lines.
> 
> Other information that is often included in TeamWare putback comments is
> not appropriate for Mercurial changeset comments.  This includes names of
> test cases run, links to webrevs, pre-integration test results, approvals
> from core release teams, etc.  Most of this type of information belongs
> in the bug database, or possibly in ancillary databases (details TBD).
> 
> (FYI for non-TeamWare users: TeamWare "putback comments" don't have
>  a direct analogue in Mercurial.  They're different from changeset
>  comments; if Mercurial supported them then they'd be comments
>  associated with a push operation.)
> 
> Comments?
> 
> - Mark