Johan Corveleyn wrote:
[...]
Hm, yes, I agree with the "don't write the same thing twice". But
perhaps the "general description" above the list of affected files
would be a better place:
[...]
Though, indeed, we're not required to always have a "general
description", and can just start with the affected files, if the
change is simple. So ... not sure.
That's the thing I'm most uncertain of at the moment: how to fit this
scheme precisely into our current log message style, without
interfering too much, keeping them as readable as possible for human
readers.
Maybe a syntax with '@' would be better, like annotations in Java or
doxygen. Like:
[...]
or as a suffix:
[...]
Just thinking out loud here ...
[...]> Hmmmm
Now you're over-thinking it. What you said first, what you use at work,
is fine. Run with it!
Thanks,
- Julian
