From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eric S. Raymond" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Referring to revisions in the git future. Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:49:17 -0400 Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs Message-ID: <20141029144917.GB4936@thyrsus.com> References: <20141028223312.GB6630@acm.acm> <87fve7b6p7.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20141029095248.GA14601@thyrsus.com> <20141029132636.GA2839@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1414594220 22312 80.91.229.3 (29 Oct 2014 14:50:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:50:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David Kastrup , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 29 15:50:14 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XjUZi-0004VF-1O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:50:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46625 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjUZh-0001lB-N1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:50:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54225) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjUZS-0001ku-GJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:49:59 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjUZO-0005KD-9S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:49:58 -0400 Original-Received: from static-71-162-243-5.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([71.162.243.5]:58291 helo=snark.thyrsus.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjUZI-0005Ja-EZ; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:49:48 -0400 Original-Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C7474382D03; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:49:17 -0400 (EDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 71.162.243.5 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:176002 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier : > > But if you write run-on text without summary lines *in comments*, > > I didn't say not to write a summary line. I opposed your recommendation > "don't write the traditional GNUish run-on change comment". Well, I still recommend that. But there are two distinct practice issues here: (1) The traditional way of writing run-on comments *discourages* writing proper summary lines - instead we get grab-bags of only quasi-related changes in a bullet list, with only the first like of the first bullet list accidently visible as a summary. We need to stop doing this. (2) Summary lines aside, commits that *have* to be described with a bullet list are almost always overgrown lumps that should have been better partitioned, if only so the changes will be easier to read later. DVCSes encourage lots of fine-grained commits that are one single thought each. Embrace this, it's good for you. -- Eric S. Raymond