Hi,
Hilton Chain <hako@ultrarare.space> writes:
[...]
> If we ask new contributors to learn from the commit history, they are likely
> to
> find the inconsistency and feel confused. It would be better to have a style
> in
> the contribution documentation, the following for example:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> scope: [changed module, procedure, variable etc. :] summary
>
> optional overview
>
> * file (variable) [changed part] {changed part, when [] is not sufficient}:
> change.
>
> metadata (Fixes: , Reviewed-by: etc.)
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> With short explanations and link to the coding standards for how to express
> changes.
It's not a bad idea, though I'm not sure if I'd want to enforce my
personal preference (e.g., {} vs <>). It doesn't overly matter to me,
especially now that it became more tedious to review the commit messages
with Codeberg. I'll probably spend more time on what ultimately matters
more (the diff), and I assume others will too.
Maybe a GCD proposing modernizing what we put in our git commit messages
could be devised; there are lots of good guidelines out there, such as
those used by the Linux kernel and Git projects.
--
Thanks,
Maxim
