[whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> However, I don't think this rough classification actually helps me
> much to identify what I want to look at. If at least the area of
> change is mentioned in your descriptive text, that would help me much
> more. For me "media" (or "video") and "webvtt" are of particular
> interest. I am particularly annoyed when I read things like "Forgot to
> remove this now false note" but don't know which spec area it applies
> to - if it's in "media" I will check no matter whether [e] or [c], if
> it's in - say - "tables", I likely won't care.

I agree that it would be helpful if commit messages were more
informative.  For editorial changes, you often don't mention anything
that gives a clue about the subject of the commit.  E.g.:

"pedantic nit: spec required a valid value	but then required the empty
va [...]"

That commit is apparently relevant to date parsing, but you can't tell
without looking at the diff, which is often hard to decipher if
there's not enough context.  You're generally good about informative
commit messages for non-editorial changes, but editorial changes are
often interesting too.  (Otherwise, why not just remove all the
non-normative parts of the spec?)

Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 06:36:49 UTC