Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > No objections to changing this, but I don't think it's the fault of a > commit message if someone reading it doesn't get an explanation for a > future unrelated improvement. > > The times when a commit should have such an explanation are cases like > e.g. introducing a function that's not used yet to make a subsequent > commit smaller, or other such cases where the change is incomplete in > some way. Deliberately omitting an obvious improvement "while at it" would be similar to adding a function that is not used yet. Careful readers notice "why don't do it at this step while touching the same area?" just like they would notice "why do it at this step when it is not yet used?". While it certainly is *not* required, they would find it helpful to answer such questions, erring on the safer side.
