On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:08:07PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > No, but outputting the note as part of the log is the standard. So for > > example, when you do a format-patch | apply cycle, format-patch will > > insert the note as part of the commit message, and apply will *store* > > the note text (including Note:\n) as part of the commit message of the > > new commit. > > Thanks; that was the kind of breakage report I was looking for (and wished > to have heard a lot earlier). Personally I find it is unexcusable that > format-patch defaults to giving notes. I agree. I noticed this while doing the "don't show in raw" feature elsewhere in the thread and wanted to ask: which formats _should_ have notes by default? To be honest, I am not sure _any_ format should have it by default. If I am running "git log" and my notes are filled with random automatically generated bisection cruft, I don't want to see that cluttering my output. Yes, all of our test notes are human-written annotations, but I think we really don't know yet what sorts of things people will be putting in them. Long ago I proposed a set of notes namespaces to deal with this (so automatic bisection cruft would go into its own notes namespace, and human-readable ones would be in some default namespace), but I don't know how much of that idea (if any) survived into the current implementation. > > I'm not complaining, I actually have this on a maybe-to-do list, but the > > way the series went kept me from investing time. > > Hmm, that hints there is a failure in the review and merge process. Care > to explain how we could have done better please? Personally, I stopped paying attention simply because it was gigantic and I am not all that interested in using the feature personally. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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