Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> The sentence about justification is one of the few things about
>> standard git that are not agnostic to the workflow that the user
>> chose.
>
> We try to be agnostic at plumbing level, but I do not think we ever made
> such a promise at the Porcelain level like "git merge". On the contrary,
> we try to encourage good workflows by coding behaviours to support BCP to
> Porcelain commands. Am I misreading what you were trying to say here?
Oh, I was just trying to preempt a possible argument why this is wrong.
Maybe I was a bit over-eager in doing so ;-)
>> +static const char merge_editor_comment[] =
>> +N_("Please enter the commit message for your merge commit. You should\n"
>> +"justify it especially if it merges an updated upstream into a topic\n"
>> +"branch.\n"
>> +"\n"
>> +"Lines starting with '#' will be ignored, and an empty message aborts\n"
>> +"the commit.\n");
>
> I am tempted to rewrite this a bit, perhaps something like ...
>
> Please enter the commit message for your merge commit. Explain
> why the merge is necessary, especially if it merges an updated
> upstream into a topic branch.
>
> ... because people who need to be told to "justify it" would probably be
> helped by a more explicit "explain _why_ it is needed".
Why not. The "explain..." might be construed as a bit too coercive, but
I cannot come up with a way to defuse it (well, except again tacking on
"you should") and yours is certainly much clearer.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
--
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