[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: git history tracking across renames (and emacs support)

From: Marcin Borkowski
Subject: Re: git history tracking across renames (and emacs support)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:05:47 +0200
User-agent: mu4e 1.1.0; emacs 27.0.50

On 2018-07-10, at 15:14, Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Jan 2018 09:49:41 +0100 Lars Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden> wrote: 
> LI> Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:
>>> What would be most helpful (and I realize I'm asking for a lot) would
>>> be ChangeLog entries or commit messages (it doesn't matter which) that
>>> explain the *motivation* for each change. In contrast, often it is
>>> counterproductive to burden commit messages with mechanical details
>>> such as naming each and every function that was modified, as it wastes
>>> developers' time to wade through these details when they're trying to
>>> look for stuff that's more important.
> LI> Hear, hear.
> I would appreciate that too. If I need to know what functions were
> modified, I look at the diff, which Git makes trivial.
> Is there any chance of evolving the commit message formatting
> requirements to lower the friction of making a commit and reduce
> redundancy?


I sometimes made some simple patch, and every time I had to find the
information about the commit message/ChangeLog entry format somewhere in
the docs.  It was very uncomfortable.


Marcin Borkowski

reply via email to

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