[fredophile]

I really dislike his notion of using the commit logs as the correct place to explain your code. First, it means that any time I need to find out why something is being done in code I need to leave the code and switch from my IDE to my source control. Second, most tools like blame will only show the most recent change. Minor fixes and changes happen all the time. What are the odds that the explanation I want will come up instead of something like "Fixed a typo". Third, what about code from other branches and external code drops?I may be using code from somewhere else and not have access to the full history of changes, just stable versions. Fourth, what happens when you change source control? If all of the comments are in the Git commit logs that'll be a big problem if the company switches to Perforce.

Instead of just making meaningful commit logs part of the code review process why not make "reading the comments" part of the code review process?