Hello, zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi, > > On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 at 01:13, Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerm...@kolabnow.com> > wrote: > >> But I do think it's one more source of “friction” for new contributors, >> and one more thing for us to require that they get right. > > [...] > >> There's one in the GNU Coding Standards¹: > > [...] > >> Personally, I think nowadays this purpose is better fulfilled by >> good commit messages and git blame. Especially with an editor that makes >> it easy to use them to navigate through history (such as Emacs, but >> certainly others as well). > > I agree that Emacs+Magit among many others make easy to navigate through > the history. However, the commit messages are probably good enough > because some Coding Standards are imposed. > > Because these standards, it is easy to navigate via grep for instance. > Git blame is useful once you know exactly what you are looking for. > Before that, when I try to figure out the logic behind such change, the > commit messages more or less fixed by the standards are very helpful, > IMHO. I agree. I've come to like GNU ChangeLog commit messages because it forces me to lay down the changes I've worked on, and sometimes I can spot things that would be better separated in its own commit, or that was unintentionally left while testing. When reviewing others' work it also give me a clear trail of what they did, and I can match the actual changes to their high level description. > Whatever the style (ChangeLog or anything else), it appears to me a good > thing to have strong standards. Agreed! Thanks, Maxim