From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Engster Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Generating the ChangeLog files from the commit messages Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 23:51:11 +0100 Message-ID: <87a93mu7mo.fsf@engster.org> References: <21606.10799.112099.788101@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <1753218.Ot8JCqssfN@descartes> <546AABCF.8030705@cs.ucla.edu> <9xioico2nm.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87zjbntvfz.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87k32rta32.fsf@engster.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416437508 28705 80.91.229.3 (19 Nov 2014 22:51:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:51:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Bastien , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 19 23:51:42 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XrE68-0002hj-DB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 23:51:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:32841 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrE68-0007XI-3H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 17:51:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46699) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrE5z-0007X9-AC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 17:51:37 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrE5s-0003R4-Uy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 17:51:31 -0500 Original-Received: from randomsample.de ([5.45.97.173]:47960) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrE5s-0003PZ-LJ; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 17:51:24 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=randomsample.de; s=a; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From; bh=0W/WxYDMtV29iHC1eeTZIjFyBVuHVUp+YU/f1ZaC5nM=; b=fOmGp/Q6YVuYqygxL5KxMILalp8g4VcuTjRESaiyc2AxqhpKuOeh0o6lPJv8cdP7eEQlgl8oMdcIimXYcP1xru/faQR1fVF7pHnrKHCHLBSWCUNMsRO4L0ysxRq2SaK8; Original-Received: from ip2504b377.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de ([37.4.179.119] helo=spaten) by randomsample.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XrE5l-00044a-3N; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 23:51:17 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Wed, 19 Nov 2014 17:21:51 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13001 (Ma Gnus v0.10) Emacs/24.3.91 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 5.45.97.173 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:177832 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> I'm all for it. My hope is that this is the first step in getting rid of >> the Changelog format altogether, and switching to commit messages that >> value content over form. > > I'm not sure what other format you have in mind which would have > better content. That's easy: prose. Just browse through projects like Git or Linux, which enforce meaningful commit messages. I'm interested in the 'Why' and 'How', not in the 'Where' and 'What'. > FWIW, I think an ideal commit message should look like: > > > Unless it's a trivial change, it's always needed. Even when you have a bug report, at least a copy&paste of the relevant bit should be there, so you can quickly see the problem without having to look it up. > Sure. > That's precisely what I'd drop. It's just a verbose diff. I'm not saying it's completely useless (although it comes close), but it's not worth the effort. > In most cases, the explanation will be empty because the bug-nb provides > the explanation or because the explanation can be placed in the code > instead (a better choice, when applicable). I disagree. Comments and commit logs are orthogonal. A comment helps you understand how code works. A commit log describes why code was changed (unless it's new, but that's less common). -David