Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > [+cc Junio as this should be the final version] Thanks, I think I queued with "do not cat a single file to a pipe" tweak already. >> > When commit 618310a taught t6302 to run without the GPG >> >> 618310a (t6302: skip only signed tags rather than all tests when GPG >> is missing, 2016-03-06) > > I sometimes intentionally avoid using that longer form when the title of > the commit does not convey what I want to communicate, and I have to > summarize the change in my own words anyway (in this case the > interesting thing is not _what_ it did, but _how_ it chose to do it). So > I find including the original subject line just bloats the sentence and > makes the point harder to find. > > But I'm curious whether other people run into that problem, or if > readers would prefer an unconditional full-citation. Personally, I find your version better in this case, simply because, as you said, the focus is different, and because the readers familiar with the recent history can still tell from your description which commit you are talking about without resorting to "git show 618310a". The only thing we are losing is the datestamp, which is more relevant when referring to a commit in more distant past. But in general, not everybody writes a good log message like you do, so if they try to imitate what you did above, the end result is likely to end up being a cryptic mess that does not help identify which commit they are talking about. For that reason, I am a bit hesitant to say everybody should omit the original when they (think they) do their own rephrasing. > Thanks, I did the reversion with s/test_prepare_expect/cat/ rather than > reverting 618310a, but I agree dropping this useless-use-of-cat is worth > doing. Here's v2 with that change and your reviewed-by. -- 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