tree 85c51c3d53d3a4073bb0093a8746827512c38223
parent 9fbcb7e2e9c32659ab11927394fec2e160be2d0b
author Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> 1564147314 +0200
committer Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> 1564148781 +0200
encoding latin1

DOC: improve the wording in CONTRIBUTING about how to document a bug fix

Insufficiently described bug fixes are still too frequent. It's a real
pain to create each new maintenance release, as 3/4 of the time is spent
trying to guess what problem a patch fixes, which is already important
in order to decide whether to pick the fix or not, but is even more
capital in order to write understandable release notes.

Christopher rightfully demands that a patch tagged "BUG" MUST ABSOLUTELY
describe the problem and why this problem is a bug. Describing the fix
is one thing but if the bug is unknown, why would there be a fix ? How
can a stable maintainer be convinced to take a fix if its author didn't
care about checking whether it was a real bug ? This patch tries to
explain a bit better what really needs to appear in the commit message
and how to describe a bug.

To be backported to all relevant stable versions.