Re: git history tracking across renames (and emacs support)

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2018-07-10, at 15:14, Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Jan 2018 09:49:41 +0100 Lars Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden> wrote: 
>
> LI> Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:
>>> What would be most helpful (and I realize I'm asking for a lot) would
>>> be ChangeLog entries or commit messages (it doesn't matter which) that
>>> explain the *motivation* for each change. In contrast, often it is
>>> counterproductive to burden commit messages with mechanical details
>>> such as naming each and every function that was modified, as it wastes
>>> developers' time to wade through these details when they're trying to
>>> look for stuff that's more important.
>
> LI> Hear, hear.
>
> I would appreciate that too. If I need to know what functions were
> modified, I look at the diff, which Git makes trivial.
>
> Is there any chance of evolving the commit message formatting
> requirements to lower the friction of making a commit and reduce
> redundancy?

+1.

I sometimes made some simple patch, and every time I had to find the
information about the commit message/ChangeLog entry format somewhere in
the docs.  It was very uncomfortable.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://mbork.pl