Format for JDK 6/7 changeset comments?

[Mark Reinhold]

> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:38:04 -0800
> From: andreas.sterbenz at sun.com

> 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.

I disagree with you about where reviewers should be acknowledged.

Reviewing code is tantamount to authorship.  From one of our internal
guideline documents (which is already in the process of being cleaned
up for external use):

    When you review a change, remember that by doing so you are taking
    on full responsibility for the appropriateness and correctness of
    the change.  If something goes wrong (e.g., the build breaks) and
    the change's author is unavailable, you will likely be asked to
    deal with the problem.  If you don't think you're qualified to
    review a change, just say no.

Changesets include author names, so they should include reviewer names
as well.  They should also include contributor names, if any, for changes
contributed by developers who don't yet have commit access.

- Mark