Format for JDK 6/7 changeset comments?

[Kelly O'Hair]

I agree.

The more you put in the changeset comment, the higher the odds that there will
be mistakes in those comments, mistakes that can NEVER be corrected.
I favor keeping it short and sweet, and use the bug database for all other information.
A place that can be corrected and added to over time.

Of course the bug database needs to refer to the changeset, which IS the true
source of the change. Any webrevs and diffs in the bug database should probably be
removed once a changeset is public, or perhaps multiple changesets depending on how
many it takes to really fix a bug. You don't want incorrect diffs or webrevs
floating around when the true change is in the changeset.

-kto

Andreas Sterbenz wrote:
> iris.clark at sun.com wrote:
>>
>>   For example:
>>
>>      4853841: Nervous text demo displays wrong version [iris, duke]
>>
>> This covers the common information but is that sufficient?  I think
> 
> I agree with your proposal (<id>: <synopsis>), but I believe that all 
> supplemental information about the bug should not be placed in the 
> changeset comments but in the bug database. That includes the names of 
> the reviewers. It is important that all information about a bug is 
> collected in one place, not two or three. That place needs to be the bug 
> database.
> 
> Andreas.
>