From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] gnu: linux-libre-beagle-bone-black: Remove kernel variant. Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:14:38 -0400 Message-ID: <8760pgubgx.fsf@netris.org> References: <20160926103447.31830-1-david@craven.ch> <20160926103447.31830-4-david@craven.ch> <20160926132344.GA23258@jocasta.intra> <20160926164934.GA25011@jocasta.intra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37227) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bp2WY-0007Xa-JB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:14:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bp2WU-00015r-8Z for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:14:57 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:43952) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bp2WU-00015R-48 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:14:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160926164934.GA25011@jocasta.intra> (John Darrington's message of "Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:49:34 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: John Darrington Cc: guix-devel John Darrington writes: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 04:24:10PM +0200, Vincent Legoll wrote: > Hello, > > @David: the following question is nothing against you, I just > took the opportunity to ask, sorry for the thread hijacking. > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:23 PM, John Darrington wrote: > > Why are we removing this? > > Is it just me finding this changelog format usefulness to be > very low ? > > > I entirely agree. > > Our current convention for commit messages is aesthetically pleasing, > but useless. It is redundant to put in the message WHAT has changed. > That can be easily determined by running "git show". What is much > more usefull is the reason WHY we changed it. > > > Recently, on another project, I came across a line of code which I > was pretty sure was pointless. I was about to delete it - but I > decided to check first. So I ran "git blame" to find out which > commit had added it. Then I ran git show to get the full details > of that commit. Fortunately, the person who had committed it 5 years > ago had mentioned exactly why it was needed. Our conventions for commit logs, which follow the GNU Coding Standards for Change Logs (see section 6.8 of the GNU Coding Standards), is that explanations belong in the comments of the code itself, not in the commit log. If that had been done in the example you give above, you would have known why the line was needed in a small fraction of the time that it must have taken you to perform all the steps above. However, I agree that commits that _remove_ code should include the rationale in the commit log, if the reason is not obvious and if there's no sensible place to put the explanation in the code. What do you think? Mark