I don't mind ticket IDs, but "Fixes #125" is not a very helpful message. Now I need to cross-reference an issue tracker just to understand what changed. I've be

I don't mind ticket IDs, but "Fixes #125" is not a very helpful message. Now I need to cross-reference an issue tracker just to understand what changed. I've been at places that required the ticket title be posted as well and that worked well. Humans could quickly see what changed and tooling could get triggered. > However, those hyper-detailed commit messages that some people seem to like? High cost, very low payback. Better to put all that effort into other docs instead. I guess I'm one of those people? I don't think the cost is very high. It's certainly no higher than putting them into another document. I don't get the emphasis on "very low payback" though. I've had to dig into projects where those detailed comments saved me weeks of effort. I love reading the rationale and any associated pitfalls with a nice code diff contextualizing the whole thing. And it's right there, easily accessible in my SCM log, where it integrates with the CLI and IDE. No 404s or issues because the startup that created the project died or was sold and the domain is no longer in use.