Re: [FAQ?] Rationale for git's way to manage the index

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@imag.fr>
Date: May 7, 2007, 08:02 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqd51duklo.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705070146140.4167@racer.site>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> Just another reason to hate CVS. Because it trained people to do that. If 
> it was not for the training by CVS, I would have strongly opposed to the 
> introduction of the "-m" switch to commit. It _encourages_ bad commit 
> messages.

Well, this really depends on the use-case, size of commit, ...

I often use a version control system for very low importance stuff. I don't want to type a 3-lines long message to describe a 2-lines long change in my ~/.emacs.el for example. I also work with people using (sorry) svn to work collaboratively, but they don't even provide a log message: the version control system here is just a replacement for unison/NFS/whatever other way to have people edit files from different machines.

For sure, in a context where code quality and review is important, -m "xxx" isn't the way (except if you prefer your shell's line editor to your actual editor).

-- 
Matthieu