I've read all your comments and I understand the "readability matters" arguments, but I think we're looking at it from a wrong angle.
Commit message *is not a history record.* Commit *is a diff*, and commit message should be a *human version* of that diff. Please keep in mind that commits can be (re)played in both direction to do/undo changes. So, it *is actually more readable* to use the *imperative/indicative* mood, because you expect it to match the meaning of diff. GIT is not going anyway, it's here to stay for a long time. But this is not GIT specific that much - diffs are here for many decades. I think the question we should ask is: How Is Django as a software project so much different from the whole world that it cannot follow the standard style of a tool it uses so heavily? Should we not keep the philosophy part for GIT authors, and then, even if we do no agree with it 100%, try to adopt it as much as possible just for the sake of consistency? In the whole thread there were no really strong arguments against this, so I believe the decision should be obvious - *just use the standard way*. -- Jozef Knaperek -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/a9caeff2-7019-4a45-8964-6a2392e4519f%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
