The fact that you’re asking proves the description is bad. URLs? “Fixed: when a URL is passed to AAA, BBB should be CCC, but it is DDD instead”. "Stupid* descriptive commit messages are unbeatable. You might as well copy the whole bug description if it’s not super long and was formulated by a person used to describe things (so, any good QA)
I think the description is sufficient. As long as the dev and contributors know what it’s referring to. Isn’t this app mostly worked on by one person? I think people complaining about short action descriptions or calling them stupid is a bit excessive. Unless both you and the OP are looking to contribute?
The fact that you’re asking proves the description is bad. URLs? “Fixed: when a URL is passed to AAA, BBB should be CCC, but it is DDD instead”. "Stupid* descriptive commit messages are unbeatable. You might as well copy the whole bug description if it’s not super long and was formulated by a person used to describe things (so, any good QA)
I think the description is sufficient. As long as the dev and contributors know what it’s referring to. Isn’t this app mostly worked on by one person? I think people complaining about short action descriptions or calling them stupid is a bit excessive. Unless both you and the OP are looking to contribute?
So users don’t care or deserve to understand what’s being fixed?
Did I say that? GitHub action descriptions isn’t really an avenue to communicate with users.