On Feb 7, 2020, at 10:39, Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There are a couple of downsides to this format: > * The number takes up space in the > git log --format=short
upside: the number appears in git log —format=short > * The number is meaningless without the site that hosts the tracker exaggerated, but I see your point > Link to code review > Link to issue > > By embedding the links, we offer something clickable to whomever is > browsing the commit message. -1, maybe. Will the commit messages be rewritten when we migrate to a different issue tracker or the provider decides to reorganize the URL paths? A stale link from which I must extract an ID would annoy me more than a bare ID, I expect. (I might have put links in a commit message or two, but please do as I say, not as I do.) Also, I've worked with issue trackers that scan commit messages for IDs in a specific format (e.g. "#1234" or "[1234]") and turn them into hyperlinks from the ticket to the related commits in a repository view. It's probably best to postpone dictating a citation format until we know the constraints of the tools we move to (hoping we do). We might even be able to configure patterns for recognizing our older citations. > Finally, I want to encourage everyone to write Why something was > changed rather What. One can deduce what changed by looking at the > commit message. It is much harder to fathom Why some change was > necessary. +1. This is good practice for code comments too. I probably appreciate "why it was not done the obvious way" the most. — Dan
