On 11/20/06, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote: > On 11/19/06, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote: >>> From: Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:41:31 +0100 >>> Subject: [PATCH] One of the comment was not really clear, rephrased to >>> make it easier to be understood by the reader >> >> Wordwrap. Perhaps it would be better to split description into short line, >> and two-line description. See http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/CommitMessageConventions
Thanks! I was not aware of that.
In short, it is better to split description into short one-line description, for example "Documentation: Make comment about merging in tutorial.txt more clear" followed by empty line, then longer description of changes (if any), for example One of the comment was not really clear, rephrased to make it easier to be understood by the reader followed by empty line, then signoff line, for example Signed-off-by: Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@xxxxxxxxx>
Ok, but the Signed/off-by part should handled by the -s option in git-format-patch.
> This is not clear to me, when I do a "git commit -a" I can add a text using vi, > should I manually split the text in multiple lines? > Only the first line will be part of the Subject? Yes. The rest will be in the email body. >> [...] >>> ------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> at this point the two branches have diverged, with different changes >>> -made in each. To merge the changes made in the two branches, run >>> +made in each. To merge the changes made in experimental into master run >> >> I would rather say: >> To merge the changes made in the two branches into master, run > > Why Jakub? There are only two branches, master and experimental. > While sitting in master and doing git pull . experimental I would > expect to merge I did in experimental into master. Changes did in > master are alreay merged in master. Am I wrong? For me, "merge" in "to merge the changes" phrase is merge in common-sense meaning of the world, not the SCM jargon. Merge the changes == join the changes, so you have to give both sides, both changes you join. Merge the changes == take changes in branch 'experimental' since forking, take changes in branch 'master' since forking, join those changes together (merge), and put the result of this joining (this merge) into branch 'master'. On the contrary, in "merge branch 'experimenta' into 'master'" phrase "merge" is in the SCM meaning of this word. Just my 2 eurocoents of not native English speaker...
I'm not a native English speaker as well, furthemore I'm still not confident with git so your comments are more then appreciated! Ciao, -- Paolo http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhbdhs7d_4hsxqc8 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/132/9a3 Non credo nelle otto del mattino. Però esistono. Le otto del mattino sono l'incontrovertibile prova della presenza del male nel mondo. Gli ultimi giorni, Andrew Masterson - 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