On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Julian Foad <julianf...@apache.org> wrote: > Johan Corveleyn wrote: >> >> [...] >> Hm, yes, I agree with the "don't write the same thing twice". But >> perhaps the "general description" above the list of affected files >> would be a better place: > > [...] >> >> Though, indeed, we're not required to always have a "general >> description", and can just start with the affected files, if the >> change is simple. So ... not sure. >> >> That's the thing I'm most uncertain of at the moment: how to fit this >> scheme precisely into our current log message style, without >> interfering too much, keeping them as readable as possible for human >> readers. >> >> Maybe a syntax with '@' would be better, like annotations in Java or >> doxygen. Like: > > [...] >> >> or as a suffix: > > [...] >> >> Just thinking out loud here ... > > [...]> Hmmmm > > Now you're over-thinking it. What you said first, what you use at work, is > fine. Run with it!
Hehe, maybe :-). OTOH: Subversion also has a 15+ year old log message style that has served it well. Before giving this system a try (if we agree we should), I think we should think carefully how to fit this into the existing style, without breaking it. It's especially important to get some buy-in from the people who create the most commits, and that's certainly not me :-). At work we have no such strong log message style as SVN. We limit ourselves to a couple of lines, and every line is *required* to have such a "tagged" prefix (which is enforced by a pre-commit hook, which on error gives a reminder of the precise syntax). It also looks a little different, with square brackets around the different parts: [U][General][SVN-1111] Fix crash in 'svn co'. (the issue annotation is optional, the other two are mandatory). [D][API] Add new api svn__blah() as entry point to the blahing feature. -- Johan