From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> Xavier Maillard <zedek@xxxxxxx> writes: > * Makefile: add git-blame as a candidate to the > byte-compilation. Change the function to call to byte-compile. Could we have a bit more detailed description on the latter change? Sure. byte-compile-file is an interactive function. batch--byte-compile is a batch function. First function would be (better) called when using emacs in its "interactive" form -ie. M-x byte-compile-file RET. batch-byte-compile is reserved for batching use (no interaction with the user). So in non interactive mode, this is prefered way to do things. Explaining why something needed a change is the point of a commit log message. Summarizing what got changed and how is good but that is secondary, because anybody can see that you changed the handcrafted --eval to -f by running "git show", even if you did not have the above proposed log message. Sorry Iam not "good" at commit log :/ What is left unsaid is _why_ it is better to use single dash form of "-batch" and -f form instead of handcrafted --eval, and the proposed log message does not clarify the reason. First reason is given by C-h f batch-byte-compile RET which gives: batch-byte-compile is an autoloaded Lisp function in `bytecomp'. (batch-byte-compile &optional noforce) Run `byte-compile-file' on the files remaining on the command line. Use this from the command line, with `-batch'; it won't work in an interactive Emacs. Each file is processed even if an error occurred previously. For example, invoke "emacs -batch -f batch-byte-compile $emacs/ ~/*.el". If noforce is non-nil, don't recompile a file that seems to be Second reason is "by habit" :) Hope Ihave been clear. If you want me to submit something again from these patches, please tell how to do so (and modify what Ihave changed). -- Xavier - 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