From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Commit netiquette. Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:40:13 +0100 Message-ID: <87pr42y2le.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <87eikjzaug.fsf@telefonica.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1266507797 25818 80.91.229.12 (18 Feb 2010 15:43:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:43:17 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 18 16:43:13 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ni8X1-0003rE-PW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:43:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55869 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ni8X1-000220-0B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:43:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ni8UR-0000yu-OP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:40:31 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35722 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ni8UQ-0000yZ-TB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:40:31 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ni8UP-0001we-Nt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:40:30 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:37437) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ni8UP-0001wa-HX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:40:29 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ni8UO-0001kU-Rw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:40:28 +0100 Original-Received: from 206.red-81-33-105.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([81.33.105.206]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:40:28 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 206.red-81-33-105.dynamicip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:40:28 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 33 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.red-81-33-105.dynamicip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:pjzwGc5uV9xxUyYIyMcWsuk1cTk= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:121195 Archived-At: "Alfred M. Szmidt" writes: > The Committer used the full Changelog entry as the commit message, so on > interfaces that just shows the first line of the commit (like the > emacs-diffs mailing list or the output of `bzr log --short' or `qlog') > you see > > 2010-02-17 Mark A. Hershberger > > which is hardly indicative of the change. > > This seems more of a short comming in `bzr log --short' than in the > way one writes commit messages. A commit message is more than a > single line. This is like saying that "Subject" fields on e-mail messages are of little use, that one always ought to look at the body of the message before deciding if it is an interesting one. > And the purpose of a change is always more suitable in the actual > code as a comment. Sure, but describing the purpose on the commit message is useful too, mostly when the change is not circumscribed to a single point on one file. Very handy for using with `annotate'. On this respect I find changelog entries as a lame way of documenting changes. Most of the time a changelog does not give more information than what I quickly get combining `log' and `annotate', except when the changelog entry documents the purpose of the change (not only *what* changed) but this rarely happens. On projects that extensively use the commit messages for documenting changes, using `log' and `annotate' is a great learning tool when you are getting familiar with the code base.