On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I would imagine this is similar to the pull requests on the linux >>> mailing list, i.e. >>> how it is with merges. Back in the time we did not open the editor for you to >>> talk about the merge you just did, and then we started doing that. >>> >>> So what to do when the description already exists? >>> >>> We could amend the description separated by a >>> >>> # comment, below was added: >>> >>> line or such and then open the editor asked for user input. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Stefan >>> >> >> This is why my gut feeling is that we should instead have a separate >> way to store a cover letter, as it doesn't necessarily have to apply >> to a branch > > Well in our workflow each series has at least one merge commit. > (You *could* have different descriptions for the different branches, > e.g. for maint: "fixes a segfault so let's get this in, but it needs to be > redone properly" and for pu: "TODO: revert this partially > when branch $proper-fix is merged") > >> or a merge commit, but could just be annotation against a >> series of commits (maybe stored as base + tip, since most series would >> be linear in nature?) > > We could suggest to use a merge always strategy for this, i.e. as soon as > you send a cover-letter, we'll make a merge for you whose parents are the > old HEAD and the new series? > > If the user strictly wants to have a linear history, then we could try some > empty commit magic before or after the series, but I doubt this is proper. > > If users insist on linear history, they deny the benefits of a DAG that > represents how the source code evolved. (Also see the eternal rebase > vs merge discussion ;) > I think you're right this can go into a merge commit and if a user insists on linear history it's their fault. >> >> However, opening an editor and amending seems quite reasonable to me >> if we're just editing branch description, and then storing that as >> part of merge commit would be reasonable? >> >> I really think we want some alternative way to store it for other use >> cases besides the description, though. > > "besides the description"? I think my brain shut down. I'm not really sure what I meant but I think I meant "we want some other way to make the cover letter permanent because the branch description isn't shared".... So... no I have no real idea what I was trying to say here. Thanks, Jake > > What do you mean by that? > > Thanks, > Stefan > >> >> Regards, >> Jake -- 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