Yes same here I personally don't use the git log much but I am fine with title + description if it is beneficial for others
Joris Van den Bossche <jorisvandenboss...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 31. Jan. 2023, 22:28: > And to be explicit, as mentioned in my original post, I am fine with > both, so +1 on title + description > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 21:53, Matthew Topol > <m...@voltrondata.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > (non-binding) I am also +1 for title + description.... > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 11:17 AM Neal Richardson < > > neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > +1, with or without description > > > > > > Neal > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 11:04 AM Weston Pace <weston.p...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 to both. This only applies to the merge button and, in that > case, the > > > > committer has a chance to review the message before merging. So if > there > > > > is garbage in the description hopefully they can catch this here and > > > adjust > > > > it or ask for a cleanup of the description. > > > > > > > > Also, it seems we're trying to be more "conventional"[1] with things > like > > > > BREAKING CHANGE in the description. If we want to go that route the > > > > description is necessary. > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/ > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:49 AM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I am also +1 for title + description. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023, at 05:16, Felipe Oliveira Carvalho wrote: > > > > > > +1 for "pull request title *and* description". > > > > > > > > > > > > Being able to read descriptions without leaving the editor is > handy. > > > > > > Keeping that information tracked in the repo means we don’t > depend on > > > > > > GitHub to reconstruct the history of the project. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 06:43 Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> +1 for "pull request title *and* description". > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I'd rather have the description recorded in git than have to > look > > > up a > > > > > >> PR to get more explanations. Also, we don't know what Github > will > > > have > > > > > >> become in 10 years. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Le 31/01/2023 à 09:53, Joris Van den Bossche a écrit : > > > > > >> > I would personally prefer to use just "Pull request title" > instead > > > > of > > > > > >> > "Pull request title and description". > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > In my experience, including the description in the commit > message > > > > (as > > > > > >> > we already do) more often gives noise to the output of `git > log`, > > > > and > > > > > >> > you can always go from the commit to the PR to see the full > > > context. > > > > > >> > In many cases, the description is quite verbose or contain > long > > > > > >> > examples, or might be outdated (written when the PR was > opened, > > > but > > > > > >> > the PR might have changed along the review process), ... > > > Especially > > > > > >> > now that we have the github PR template with sections, they > might > > > > > >> > become even more verbose. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Personally, when opening a PR myself, I often leave the top > post > > > > > >> > empty, to add a second comment with more explanation, exactly > to > > > > avoid > > > > > >> > including that in the commit message if that doesn't seem > useful > > > to > > > > > >> > me. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Anyway, I am certainly OK with both options if the general > > > consensus > > > > > >> > is for "Pull request title and description" (and certainly if > that > > > > > >> > enables actually using the merge button), but just stating my > > > > personal > > > > > >> > preference. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 09:33, Raúl Cumplido < > > > raulcumpl...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> +1 > > > > > >> >> We already do it on the merge script and we have already > changed > > > it > > > > > on > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> >> `arrow-site` repo. > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> El mar, 31 ene 2023 a las 9:13, Sutou Kouhei (< > > > k...@clear-code.com > > > > >) > > > > > >> >> escribió: > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >>> Hi, > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> We need to get consensus to change the default commit > > > > > >> >>> message for merge button: > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24133 > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>>> Could you change the default commit message when merging a > > > > > >> >>>> PR to "Default to pull request title and description" on > > > > > >> >>>> the following Apache Arrow related repositories? > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> * https://github.com/apache/arrow > > > > > >> >>>> * https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc > > > > > >> >>>> * https://github.com/apache/arrow-cookbook > > > > > >> >>>> * https://github.com/apache/arrow-flight-sql-postgresql > > > > > >> >>>> * https://github.com/apache/arrow-julia > > > > > >> >>>> * https://github.com/apache/arrow-nanoarrow > > > > > >> >>>> * https://github.com/apache/arrow-testing > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> See also: > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.blog/changelog/2022-08-23-new-options-for-controlling-the-default-commit-message-when-merging-a-pull-request/ > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Related: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24122 > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24133#comment-17682383 > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>>> Please provide a mailing list link to project consensus on > this > > > > > >> change. > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> How about changing the default commit message for merge > > > > > >> >>> button to "Default to pull request title and description" > > > > > >> >>> like our dev/merge_arrow_pr.py in apache/arrow does? > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> Note that this doesn't mean that we drop > > > > > >> >>> dev/merge_arrow_pr.py immediately. It's a separated > > > > > >> >>> discussion. > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> Thanks, > > > > > >> >>> -- > > > > > >> >>> kou > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
