> > Under the current process, the Jira subject becomes the commit message
I didn't know this was perceived as a "rule" and I don't follow it (oops?). I also don't agree with it being a good idea. I typically put substantially more information in a commit message than a jira subject. A commit message also comes after resolution whereas a jira subject comes before resolution. I don't generally think it is a good idea to change a jira subject on commit as I find it confusing when you're actually tracking a jira. If I were to change the subject on commit, I would be inclined to change it to what I changed, not a symptom. > As a reviewer, am I within my rights to say ‘I’m not going to even read > your code until you tell me what problem you are trying to solve?’. If a commit message doesn't clearly state the purpose of the patch, I'd be completely comfortable asking the user to update the commit message to clarify the purpose of the patch. I definitely wouldn't say it like that quote does. > Given that we have far more contributions than active reviews, and that I > am one of the most prolific reviewers, I suspect that I am. I don't think this is a constructive statement. It presents an argument (likely accidental) that because you do more of this kind of work, your opinion matters more than others'. I don't agree with this sentiment. If anything, I think we should be doing things to increase others' contributions--potentially at the cost of some small fraction of yours. Having a bus factor of one is a disservice to the community. Don't take this as a lack of appreciation and awe of your amazing contributions, just an expression of discomfort around what effectively feels like "pulling rank". what about reviewers and end users? I agree that these stakeholders are important. That being said, I haven't heard a lot of end users' complaints about our jira subjects or commit messages. Did I miss this?
