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

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:14:39 +0000
> Cc: address@hidden
> 
> 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?

IMO, what you'd like to have will actually _raise_ the friction
(i.e. will be harder to provide) for many contributors, according to
my experience of reviewing quite a few patches.