|
| 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.
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |