On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 01:31:09PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 06:49:34PM +0200, John Darrington wrote: > Our current convention for commit messages is aesthetically pleasing, > but useless. It is redundant to put in the message WHAT has changed. > That can be easily determined by running "git show". What is much > more usefull is the reason WHY we changed it. I find the GNU changelog style to be very useful when reading the Git log. There are certain types of commits that we make over and over again, especially with packages (updates, adding inputs, etc), and I find it helpful when their commit messages follow a common format. I agree that commits that don't conform to one of those types should have some explanation. This is why I often rewrite commit messages when I am committing on behalf of somebody else. But there is a value to "aesthetic" consistency. It's just like having standards for code style in my opinion. It helps a lot when reading others' commits.
I don't object to a having a common style. I just wish that the information that we put in our messages a) gave the rationale for the change; and b) didn't merely repeat information which git show could have told me. J' -- Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature