From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Summarizing the purpose of a change. Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:02:25 -0600 Message-ID: <87r5rqbihq.fsf@red-bean.com> References: <87iqd4tkv4.fsf@red-bean.com> <20091121121950.GB2021@muc.de> <834ooooxp6.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1258909785 17625 80.91.229.12 (22 Nov 2009 17:09:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:09:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 22 18:09:37 2009 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 4.50) id 1NCFwO-0002hW-9o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:09:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58897 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NCFwN-0006YU-ET for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:09:35 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NCFpe-0001ca-1b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:02:39 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NCFpX-0001a3-Em for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:02:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55494 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NCFpX-0001Zq-8l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:02:31 -0500 Original-Received: from sanpietro.red-bean.com ([66.146.206.141]:38530) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NCFpU-0005Of-Dw; Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:02:28 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53357 helo=kfogel-work ident=kfogel) by sanpietro.red-bean.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NCFpR-0002eu-Ut; Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:02:26 -0600 In-Reply-To: <834ooooxp6.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:43:17 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.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:117501 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> > In many projects, there is a convention of summarizing the purpose of a >> > change in one or two sentences at the start of the log entry. This >> > makes the rest of the log entry (and the change itself) easier to >> > understand. >> >> > Could we try that in Emacs? Or is there some reason we don't do it? >> >> I do this every time. So far, nobody's complained. > > I do this when I commit large sets of changes. It could be a nuisance > to do that for simple changes in a single file, though. Yup. I'm talking about just the situation where a summary is necessary. For an easy fix in a single file, the technical description of the change can also be the summary -- no one needs more. Only when the change is not its own summary is a summary is needed. So far, everyone who's chimed in has basically said "Yeah, I try to do this". But my question is more about making it policy, in the sense that of making it appropriate to follow up to change saying "How about a summary line for that?" -K