I'm starting to understand why. It appears my workflow has the information other people would want from a git log elsewhere (test, specs, examples, etc)
Usually people 'own' a file or part of the system so that wouldn't really be happening anyway
Because sometimes we can learn from history. If a mistake was made at some point it can be good to understand why. Of course you can adopt the mindset that you don't care what ended up causing a bug, but learning from mistakes is a good thing.
> see if someone modified a test I thought was covering the case
How do you see if someone modified the test then? I feel like we are maybe misunderstanding eachother because to me, and seemingly most other commenter here, this is such an obvious no-brainer that it seems something is lost in the communication.
A commit message helping me learn anything that I didn't get from a code comment sounds like a stretch. I'm doubting this
> How do you see if someone modified the test then? I feel like we are maybe misunderstanding eachother
Clearly. I was suggesting I might see commit messages if I'm using git blame to find out if a case was removed from a set of test or if it never existed in the first place. But I don't see how messages would help at all in anything I do. What I'm looking for is far too specific to be in a commit message and this whole thread about using commit messages to learn sounds nonsensical.
As an example, say log messages are strictly required to contain a bug database ticket number (even if they are not fixes: bug database tracks tasks too) then that is useful; you can quickly search the git log for a bug number to find all of its commits.