Personally I really hate it when developers don't add a commit message in subversion.

Here at stackoverflow I am guilty of the same crime. Usually I'm so involved in my answer that I just forget to add an edit summary. What makes things worse is that I edit heavily.

There is no data about edit summaries in the data dump, but a quick look at other answers shows that I'm seemingly no exception.

What do you think? Do you add an edit summary? Is it bad manners to omit it?

Note: I don't want the edit summary feature gone. I just want to gauge the opinion on its usage.

share|improve this question
add comment

closed as not constructive by kiamlaluno, jonsca, animuson, Toon Krijthe, Paŭlo Ebermann Sep 30 '12 at 13:21

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

4 Answers

up vote 13 down vote accepted

I fill in an edit summary if I think it requires an explanation. If all I am doing is fixing grammar, punctuation, title name, etc. I do not fill in a summary.

If I am doing an edit for a specific reason (say to remove a piece of text calling out another user maliciously) I will make the edit explaining my reason why and why it should not be done in the future.

Often times edits speak for themselves. If they don't, that's when you need the summary.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I used to fill it in all the time. Now I almost never do.

Most of my edits are to my own posts, in which case it really doesn't matter. Most other edits are just reformatting code - sometimes I add an edit comment of "Code formatting" but usually I don't. The diff usually does a good enough job, to be honest.

share|improve this answer
add comment

If i'm editing my own post, i'm pretty lax about it.

If i'm editing someone else's post, i try to add a comment for any change not completely obvious (no point in writing "edited tags" when the system will fill that in for me...). I'm not always terribly polite in these comments, but i consider it a matter of respect: i'm changing something someone else wrote, they should have an explanation as to why.

share|improve this answer
3  
Very important when editing someone else's work. And I try t be polite even when I don't feel like it. It's a kind of preemptive conflict management. –  dmckee Aug 6 '09 at 19:16
3  
"I'm not always terribly polite in these comments, but i consider it a matter of respect" -- Come again? –  mmyers Aug 6 '09 at 19:17
    
@mmyers: if i have to re-write an entire question because the original was [unreadable | argumentative | confusing], then i'm probably going to say so in the revision comment, even if i'm more polite in the comments on the question itself. –  Shog9 Aug 6 '09 at 19:23
    
When i retag I sometimes explain why I retagged (i.e. the tag was useless, it's not the right tag, needs more tags) –  alex Oct 11 '09 at 6:21
add comment

Started off adding in summaries plainly about what was happening. Now, it's just random lines pulled from songs, TV shows and whatever.

share|improve this answer
3  
IMHO, useless or irrelevant comments are worse than none. They clutter and obscure the content that matters. –  Ether Sep 20 '09 at 20:07
    
The only relevance between the lyrics and edit summaries are the actions/reason of the edit in question or the question topic itself. –  random Oct 11 '09 at 6:45
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .