User:Hsinyi/Gecko engineering: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Creating a patch & testing: patch scope & size)
Line 96: Line 96:
*Reviewers should feel comfortable to reject a review request if the commit message isn’t well-written or doesn’t provide useful information.
*Reviewers should feel comfortable to reject a review request if the commit message isn’t well-written or doesn’t provide useful information.
*[[https://groups.google.com/g/mozilla.dev.platform/c/qERnoJniCds/m/6DLNfrGhBQAJ Open question]] People have various preferences on the length of commit messages … We need more discussions and a much better style guide, explaining what makes a good commit message and what makes a good and descriptive bug, with a number of (good and bad) examples.
*[[https://groups.google.com/g/mozilla.dev.platform/c/qERnoJniCds/m/6DLNfrGhBQAJ Open question]] People have various preferences on the length of commit messages … We need more discussions and a much better style guide, explaining what makes a good commit message and what makes a good and descriptive bug, with a number of (good and bad) examples.
===== Patch scope & size =====
It’s arguable if the size of a patch matters much and optimizing for “small changes v.s. big diffs” is hard. But a good principle to keep is: '''seek to understand''' (understand the code, implement the change), and '''seek to be understood''' (present the change in an understandable form). Normally, smaller is better.
An example for arranging patches in sequence to help reviewers: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1615581
Ensure to always stick with *the* real problem you want to fix. Be conscious about '''not''' adding unrelated fixes into that patch, even if they are super tiny.


== Release health and product quality ==
== Release health and product quality ==
== Roadmap and status communication ==
== Roadmap and status communication ==
Confirmed users
978

edits

Navigation menu