[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 01:05:29 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0

On 03/07/2016 08:05 PM, Andy Moreton wrote:

Commit messages should show both what motivates the need for a patch
(bugfix, new feature etc), and why the approach chosen is better than
other possible designs.

Not to say there's no place for improvement in our commit messages, but keeping the actual explanation separately (in a bug report, in in a mailing list message), and linking to it from the commit message is entirely fine in my book. In certain cases, it's hard to avoid that anyway (the explanation is too verbose/hard to summarize/etc).

The Linux kernel documentation has a good description of what is needed
in a commit message in section 2 of Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

It's a fine description, but it's huge compared to the Change Log format description (thus raising the barrier of entry if we decide to use it officially), and ultimately, it leaves a lot up to the patch author's judgment anyway.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]