Hello Junio, On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:24:53AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Commit logs as shown by git-log are usually indented by four spaces so > > here it makes sense to do the same for commit notes. > > > > However when using format-patch to create a patch for submission via > > e-mail the commit log isn't indented and also the "Notes:" header isn't > > really useful. So consequently don't indent and skip the header in this > > case. This also removes the empty line between the end-of-commit marker > > and the start of the notes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > This commit changes the output of format-patch (applied on this commit) from: > > > > ... > > case. > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > Notes: > > This commit changes the output of format-patch (applied on this commit) from: > > > > to > > > > ... > > case. > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > This commit changes the output of format-patch (applied on this commit) from: > > > > which I consider to be more useful. > > I suspect that is fairly subjective, as the current one is in that > form because those who wrote this feature first, reviewed, applied > would have considered it more useful, isn't it? Well, I thought when the feature to dump the notes into a patch was created there was exactly one way these notes were written. This was was designed for git-log and so intended and with "Notes:". For git-format-patch it was good enough. > Because I never send out a format-patch output without looking it > over in an editor, I know I can easily remove it if I find the > "Notes:" out of place in the output, but if the "Notes:" thing > weren't there in the first place I may scratch my head trying to > figure out where to update it if the information there were stale, > so for that reason I'd find it more useful to have Notes: to remind > me where that information comes from. As you must explicitly request notes to be included in patches (--notes) I think it's unusual to not know where the info comes from, doesn't it? I don't know how many people use git-notes to track their comments, but the first thing I do when editing patches is to remove the Notes: header and s/^ // on the remaining lines. And most of the time this is the only thing I do and I need to touch every patch only because of that. > But that is just my personal preference and I am willing to be > persuaded either way with a better argument than "to me it looks > nicer". > > As to indenting, because the material after three-dashes is meant to > be fed to "git apply" or "patch", I'd prefer to keep it to avoid > having to worry about a payload that may look like part of a patch. > This preference is a bit stronger than the presence/absence of > "Notes:". Ok, that's a valid concern. If we want to assert that this doesn't look like a patch we need to at least parse the notes and quote it somehow. Hmm. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- 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