Q:

Do you fill in an edit summary?

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.

A:

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.

A:

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.

A:

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.

