Re: Adding git-commit highlight mode?

[Konstantin Kharlamov <Hi-Angel@yandex.ru>]

On Fri, 2025-01-03 at 23:14 +0200, Björn Bidar wrote:
> Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On 1/2/2025 10:30 AM, Konstantin Kharlamov wrote:
> > > But Emacs seems to be the only widely popular editor that still
> > > doesn't
> > > provide OOTB at least syntax highlight for git-commit format. So,
> > > does
> > > anyone have opposition to adding a major mode that would be bound
> > > to
> > > filenames like `COMMIT_EDITMSG` and others, and would provide the
> > > aforementioned highlight?
> > 
> > For what it's worth, I wrote a very simple package to do this for
> > myself, since I don't use Magit. (I'm just so used to the Git
> > command
> > line that I've never taken the time to mess with Magit.)
> > 
> 
> Is there a way we can do this without reinventing the wheel? E.g. by
> including Jonas's git-commit mode into Emacs?

Using Jim's mode comes as close as it gets to not reinventing the
wheel. As mentioned by Stefan elsewhere in the thread, Jonas' git-
commit that is part of magit can't be easily included for license
reasons.

> PS: It would be very beneficial to not uses Github for Emacs
> development but other FOSS platforms such as Codeberg. No need to
> feed
> Copilot with our code to copy it into other non-FOSS code.

As mentioned by Dick, Emacs is mirrored to Github anyway. From my
search it seems neither Codeberg nor Gitlab has an active Emacs mirror,
right? That means there's no other option besides Github for
contributors to store their local changes to before sending them
upstream. Obviously, a new contributor wouldn't have an account to
git.savannah, and even if they do, git.savannah doesn't allow to fork a
repo, instead it requires to store everyone the changes to their local
branch on a shared repo, which seems unsafe on a bigger scale.