Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
The real takeaway is that different projects have different requirements.

In over 30 years of using source control, I've never once worked on something where it's useful to include the component (article calls it scope) in the description in a standardised way. It's obvious what components are affected based on where in the source tree the affected files are. Similarly "bug", "fix" or "feature" adds no useful value. It's important or it wouldn't be checked in.

The only thing I've found useful, and which the article doesn't even consider, is a link / id for the relevant change request. The commit already contains all the information about what was done in the change, what's missing is the context about why.

Even on my solo projects I include a JIRA reference in square brackets before the description. If it's just something I randomly decided to fix during the course of development, I'll create a short 1 line JIRA to get an id and explain the why there.

loading story #48416667
loading story #48416201
loading story #48415826
loading story #48418114
loading story #48415566
loading story #48416810
loading story #48416583
loading story #48419297
loading story #48419404
loading story #48415883
loading story #48417003