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

[Ted Zlatanov]

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?

Ted