On 16 September 2010 03:18, Daniel Stenberg <dan...@haxx.se> wrote: > On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Dominik Riebeling wrote: > > (I changed subject since I try to change the direction of the discussion a > bit here.) > >> I don't know if it's just me but at least *I* would really appreciate >> descriptive commit messages since it allows one to more easily follow >> development. > > We've been discussing commit "templates" and how to do this before, so I've > given this some thoughts again during this thread and I suggest we start > using a simple but slightly defined system that's similar to what the git > people do: > > --- start --- > [area]: [short oneline description] > > [longish description wrapped at 72 columns that explain why and possibly how > the change is done] > --- end --- > > I would also encourge the use a few "magic words" in the long description > for easier reference: > > Reported by: [reporter] > Bug: [URL/reference to the bug being fixed/addressed] > Written by: [author] (due to lack of git's --author) > > The rationale for the magic words is of course to allow easier extraction > afterwards. Like when you want to figure out who's done a lot of patches, or > which bugs that were fixed within a given interval etc. We can of course > extend them over time, or just not use the ones that we don't find use for. > > Example commit message: > ---- start ---- > backlight e200v1: toggle the correct GPIO > > When the moon goes out of phase, it turns out that the memory > map gets reversed and we take a random entrophy to make it right > again. > > Reported by: Buggy the Bugreporter > Bug: http://www.rockbox.org/tracker/9763 > Written by: Hacker John Doe > --- end --- > > The most simple commit message in this system uses only the first short > description and nothing else. > > -- > > / daniel.haxx.se >
I honestly don't see the point. I don't remember anyone ever complaining about commit messages except extremely trivial commits, so really all this would do is slow down actual development and make committing either more controversial (in that not doing it right could potentially blow up every time) or more annoying.
