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.
There's an abstract explaining what is discussed in the file, a small
explanation of how the project works, which justifies the measures
taken here, and instructions about what to do when a patch is ignored,
or how to annoy everyone.
Few typos detected by misspell in the README and CONTRIBUTING.
Even if one of them is on a listing of commits. I'm assuming that
if we want to enforce less typos in the commits, having one in the
contributing guide is not the best example.
Add reg-tests/README file about how to compile and use varnishtest, and
how to produce patches to add regression testing files to HAProxy sources.
Also update CONTRIBUTING file to encourage the contributors to write
regression testing files.
Make it clear that optional components must not break when disabled,
that openssl is the only officially supported library and its support
must not be broken, and that bug fixes must always be detailed.
While at it use "You" instead of "They" as in the context
it seems to make more sense to refer to "you", as it is
you that are going to be running the command, there is no
"they".
Signed-off-by: Thiago Farina <tfarina@chromium.org>
