I have built up quite a backlog of email, so I did not see that the discussion had effectively concluded when I wrote my message.
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 04:25:14PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 15271 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > > Probably better to say something like, "When a blog is removed, the > > committer should send a direct email message to the author of the > > removed content explaining the reason for the removal." > > Ah please not. > > > That keeps potentially loaded statements from being recorded in commit > > message forever. It also allows the author something perhaps more > > complete than a short sentence fragment in a commit message upon which > > to base a decision on how to proceed. > > And I sometimes remove blogs for them just going 5xx. A commit msg is fine. > I still think an email to the author would be a good thing in that case. I have had parts of my site stop functioning and known of it for some time. An email from someone telling me that it is broken is something I consider to be helpful. In any event, I don't think it is particularly important enough to warrant changing something for which consensus has already been established. > And who says a commi message is short? Write a novel, if you want. :) > I think we have enough flamewars ongoing at the moment that I am not going to take the bait to start a philosophical/religious discussion on the merits of short/concise commit messages :-) Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez