I disagree. If you look back and all you see are commit messages summarizing the diff, you won't get any meaningful information.
Telling me `Changed timeout from 30s to 60s` means nothing, while `Increase timeout for slow <api name> requests` gives me an actual idea of why that was done.
Even better if you add meaningful messages to the commit body.
Take a look at commits from large repositories like the Linux kernel and we can see how good commit messages looks like.
I mean you're not op but his comment was saying
> Interesting idea. But those say what’s in the commit. The commit diff already tells you that. The best commit messages IMO tell you why you did it and what value was delivered.
Which doesn't include what was done. Your example includes both which is fine. But not including what the commit does in the message is an antipattern imho. Everything else that is added is a bonus.