svn commit: r317409 - head/contrib/tcpdump

[John Baldwin]

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 01:10:00 PM Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > full
> > (github or otherwise) URL including the commit hash to just a bare commit
> > hash,
> > but find either acceptable and adequate for the purpose.  (FWIW, the
> > correct commit
> > was the top google hit for me.)
> > 
> > I hope we are in agreement that commit messages ought to still include some
> > description of what change is being brought in, in addition to the
> > hash/link, though.
> 
> Commit messages should stand complete and alone, without need to refernce
> outside material to understand what was changed and why it was changed.
> Again, at best Obtained From:  should of been a usable url.

I think this is perhaps the point of contention, and I think while the
sentiment is correct, I would not apply it to this commit.  The commit
message should indeed describe what is going on, but having a citation inline
vs in the footnotes isn't invalid in and of itself.  (FWIW, Obtained From
generally references another project rather than a single commit, so
'Obtained From: FooBSD', or 'Obtained from: tcpdump')

We also make several references to other source code revisions in outside
repositories in commits.  Just look at commits to makefs that refer to CVS
revisions when merging changes from NetBSD, or any of the changes to ZFS that
always reference the revision identifier from illumos.

I do think that when referring to a Git hash the citation should also include
something to identify which repository it came from.  It doesn't have to be a
URL per se (we just use 'NetBSD' for makefs, not a full URL to NetBSD's
cvsweb), but it should be clear enough that one can find the corresponding
repository.  Probably that information belongs in 'Obtained From'.

-- 
John Baldwin