Am 9/27/2011 0:28, schrieb Peter Stuge: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> You don't have to explain these to *me* specifically as a response >> to this thread. What I meant was that your patch should have these >> necessary descriptions in its proposed commit log message. > > IMO not so neccessary if one knows a little web and javascript, which > is probably likely for a gitweb change.. > > It's a simple fix of links broken by manual URI manipulation that > didn't consider fragments. Is the subject description really not > enough? No, it is not. The target audience of a commit message are people like I am. I do know a bit of Perl, and a bit of Javascript; I know how an URL is structured; I would find my way through the gitweb code if the need arises. But I am not an expert in any of these areas. The subject alone is not sufficient because I do not know for sure what an "URI fragment" is or what role line numbers in gitweb's links play. The explanations and examples you gave in a later email were very enlightening, and they would be very helpful if *I* am forced to hack gitweb, and if I need to understand why this particular change was good. Finding the right balance between verbosity and terseness needs practice, but to write *no* justification is practically always wrong. -- Hannes -- 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