From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Referring to revisions in the git future. Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:04:48 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20141028223312.GB6630@acm.acm> <87fve7b6p7.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20141029095248.GA14601@thyrsus.com> <20141029132636.GA2839@thyrsus.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1414591537 5419 80.91.229.3 (29 Oct 2014 14:05:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:05:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David Kastrup , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Eric S. Raymond" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 29 15:05:29 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 1XjTsO-0000P4-Ha for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:05:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46348 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjTsN-0003qR-Un for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:05:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39346) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjTs1-0003mI-76 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:05:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjTrt-0006Jg-Em for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:05:05 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:36675) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjTrl-0006IR-Js; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:04:49 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Au4MAOatTlRFpY87/2dsb2JhbABcgw6DYoZ+y1MEAgKBHBcBAXyEAwEBAwFWIwULCzQSFBgNJIhLCctyAQEBBwIBH5EIB4RLBZ8SkH2CEYFvhBQhgnoBAQE X-IPAS-Result: Au4MAOatTlRFpY87/2dsb2JhbABcgw6DYoZ+y1MEAgKBHBcBAXyEAwEBAwFWIwULCzQSFBgNJIhLCctyAQEBBwIBH5EIB4RLBZ8SkH2CEYFvhBQhgnoBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,797,1406606400"; d="scan'208";a="95506296" Original-Received: from 69-165-143-59.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.165.143.59]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 29 Oct 2014 10:04:48 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id B5E0C7ABE; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:04:48 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20141029132636.GA2839@thyrsus.com> (Eric S. Raymond's message of "Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:26:36 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 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:175992 Archived-At: > That's fine - for ChangeLogs. Forget the ChangeLog file. Their content is just a redundant copy of the commit message. > 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". > Yes, git commits are cheap. The same was said of Bzr commits. I'll see when I start using it more extensively. > Heh. And, of course, you don't understand that the exact reason I did > this was the ChangeLog conventions - I was trying to be a good soldier > and make changesets in which content changes were properly grouped > with their ChangeLog entries, and this meant in practice I could not > generally allow a commit to touch multiple directories containing > ChangeLogs. There's no problem with a single commit that touches many ChangeLog files. Don't ever decide how to split a patch based on what the ChangeLog files should contain. That's completely backassward. Stefan