Re: File names in ChangeLog entries

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: stefan@marxist.se,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 13:46:52 -0500
> 
> >>     * filename (func): Short description
> >> 
> >>     Explanation
> >> 
> >>     * filename (func): Short description.
> >> 
> >> ?
> >
> > No.  I don't understand why you insist on putting the file/function
> > part on the first (a.k.a. "header") line.  The header line is supposed
> > to be a summary, so that the likes of
> 
> The first line summary should also summarize the files.

No, it doesn't need to do that.  And it frequently isn't even
possible.  In any case, this is not our conventions (they are also not
what the GCS say).

> That goes back to my original message in this thread: I regularly see
> commit messages where the first line is only complete if you know to
> which (set of) file(s) the change is applied.
> 
> E.g.:
> 
>     Avoid unnecessary call when pixel scrolling
> 
> Maybe this is a change in the `pixel-scroll` package, but it could also
> be a change in some completely different package which happens to fix
> a problem that occurs when used in conjunction with pixel scrolling.

Yes, we have some not very good summaries.  But I'm sure you will have
no difficulties in writing good summary lines.

Once again, the format we ask for is:

  Summary line

  Detailed description of the change, the reasons for it, and any
  other relevant information (if any).
  * file (func): Description of the change in file:func.