I just looked at git log and I see:
ommit 85d5a7e8ef472a4a64e5de883cf313c111a8ec77 (HEAD)
Author: Ashwin Ramaswami <aramaswamis@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Dec 6 08:37:41 2022 -0500
bpo-37860: re-add netlify.toml to set up deploy previews for docs (#92852)
* Revert "bpo-46184: remove `netlify.toml` (#30272)"
This reverts commit fbaf2e604cd354f1ebc6be029480010c6715a8ca.
* Delete runtime.txt
* Create runtime.txt
* Delete runtime.txt
* Update netlify.toml
* Update netlify.toml
* Add netlify badge
* Update Doc/tools/templates/layout.html
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
* Update layout.html
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
I don’t know what is netlify.toml
, I don’t get if this change adds or removes the file. Moreover, it says that it both creates and removes runtime.txt
file That’s misleading. “Co-authored-by: Hugo” is duplicated. Such commit message is hard to read. I don’t want to blame the person who merged this very specific commit. Such commit message is becoming more and more frequent.
Would you mind to please manually edit the commit message to make it shorter when merging a PR? Remove useless details and try to better explain the change. Thanks
Another example:
commit 22d91c16bb03c3d87f53b5fee10325b876262a78
Author: Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Nov 22 12:06:36 2022 -0600
gh-99146 struct module documentation should have more predictable examples/warnings (GH-99141)
* nail down a couple examples to have more predictable output
* update a number of things, but this is really just a stash...
* added an applications section to describe typical uses for native and machine-independent formats
* make sure all format strings use a format prefix character
* responding to comments from @gpshead. Not likely finished yet.
* This got more involved than I expected...
* respond to several PR comments
* a lot of wordsmithing
* try and be more consistent in use of ``x`` vs ``'x'``
* expand examples a bit
* update the "see also" to be more up-to-date
* original examples relied on import * so present all examples as if
* reformat based on @gpshead comment (missed before)
* responding to comments
* missed this
* one more suggested edit
* wordsmithing
I’m not sure that the keeping the history of the change in the commit message is worth it