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
> Maybe a syntax with '@' would be better, like annotations in Java or
> doxygen. Like:
> or as a suffix:
> Just thinking out loud here ...
Now you're over-thinking it. What you said first, what you use at work,
is fine. Run with it!
Received on 2017-12-04 23:01:19 CET