On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:08:31 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Which is exactly what I told you to do. Just don't make it a git header. Well I just don't see how making it a header, or plopping it at the end of a commit message makes an iota of difference to git, while it can help porcelain. > We do that already. Look at "git revert". Ooh. Aah. It works today. Nice. Gotta love git. > Just don't make it something that changes semantics, and that git parses > and "understands". Because git clearly doesn't understand it at all, since > you didn't define it to have any meaning that _can_ be understood. But that's exactly the point, it's no different than extending git to be able to store more than one comment. Comment1 Comment2 Comment3. Pure content that git need not give any semantic meaning. Git has a limitation of only a single comment today, there's no semantic damage to extending git to allow multiple comments. And there are a few applications, like bug tracking etc, which could use such a feature to good effect. Sean - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html