From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9CE31FD5A for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 00:29:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237390AbiCDAak (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2022 19:30:40 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43330 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236860AbiCDAaj (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2022 19:30:39 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD3488BE0E for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 16:29:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B24918D1BF; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 19:29:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=BO+Q4/p7cZaYU4xE+EQozI6x4D8NPDjZfRl00l n1Hi8=; b=Sp2lGVkR9UNUcy9LZNN4+B/IPxaATNOA+9Y9WBgFf9i9NcBvUhko5s oISYT5yzNgRjppMPIurAxcGW2zIWH6cMFsmhxHl26dt35SJ6HoKGIM77GaGgszZx ULTvp834q3XYr8wMb0xvEzBVSoC2dKfg/Jeh2wVX4oHcagTF5xO3A= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44CF918D1BE; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 19:29:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.230.65.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2B1918D1BD; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 19:29:50 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Emily Shaffer Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] SubmittingPatches: explain why we care about log messages References: <20220126234205.2923388-1-gitster@pobox.com> <20220127190259.2470753-4-gitster@pobox.com> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 16:29:49 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Emily Shaffer's message of "Thu, 3 Mar 2022 16:10:19 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3443D608-9B52-11EC-8F43-CBA7845BAAA9-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Emily Shaffer writes: >> +The goal of your log message is to convey the _why_ behind your >> +change to help future developers. >> + > > This is pretty compelling. Is it clear enough why we care about this in > the commit message, as opposed to in the patch description (cover letter > or post-"---" blurb)? Is it too obvious to explicitly mention that the > commit message is the first thing we try to make sense of during a 'git > blame' or 'git bisect'? Having to say "this may be better in the in-code comment rather than the log message" to some patch recently (I do not remember), I tend to agree that some guidance would help people decide between the two (or writing both). Again, patches welcome ;-)