On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 09:18 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: > First, continuing to have good quality messages. Right now at the > very least you get a (semi-) accurate record of what was touched. > I've seen plenty of ChangeLog-less projects out there than end up with > commits like "fixed a bug", or even worse.
Something else that hasn't been raised is that ChangeLogs can be revised. We often see people making mistakes with their ChangeLog entries, but since the ChangeLog is versioned, they can revise it. If you screw up a commit message, it's much harder to fix it (and a purist might argue that to do so would be destroying revision history). > Also it seems to me that this will make it a bit harder for developers > without write access to get their patches checked in ... because it > will mean even more work for whoever does the commit. That's a good point. Ben
