On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 01:26:41PM +0100, Philip Oakley wrote: > >> > Totally offtopic, but is it only me who finds these "section >> > headers" in cover letters from some people irritating and/or >> > jarring? >> >> Personally I find that, for significant patch series, that clearly breaking >> out these distinct sections is of advantage. At this stage (the very first >> patch 0/n) there is no specific conversation, so the subject line is a short >> 'hello' to the topic, and then the contributor is (it is to be hoped) >> setting out their proposal in a clear manner. >> >> So I do like these headings for larger series, though there is some >> judgement to be made as to when the subject line alone is sufficient. > > I can live with fancily-formatted cover letters. BUT. I would say if > your cover letter is getting quite long, you might consider whether some > of its content ought to be going elsewhere (either into commit messages > themselves, or into a design document or other place inside the repo). I am of the opinion that in an ideal workflow the cover letter would be part of the merge commit message. It may even be editorialized or annotated by the maintainer performing the merge, but not necessarily so. Currently I rarely pay attention to merges, because they are not exciting (in a good way). I mostly know the texts that Junio puts into the merge message[1] from the cooking email, and otherwise there is not much information added there. However looking at *what* Junio puts there, is "why is this worthwhile to merge from the *projects* point of view?", whereas the cover letter most of the time talks about "Why the *contributor* wants this merged". Often these are subtly different, so it would be nice to have these two competing views around. [1] e.g. cf. da15b78e52 Merge branch 'jk/ui-color-always-to-auto' >> As a separate follow on, one thing that does annoy me is that in subsequent >> versions of the various patch series, folk tend to drop all explanation of >> why the series is of any relevance, leaving just the 'changed since last >> time' part. This means that new readers who try and pick up / review / >> contribute to a series later on in its development are not told the purpose. >> When the list is active it can, accidentally, do a disservice to the >> potential contributors who may feel that only core contributors are able to >> contribute. > > I actually have the opposite opinion. I find it annoying to have to wade > through the same unchanged content for each round just to find the > little snippet of "here's what's changed". Would you be happier if the "What changed?" goes first[2]? Though I think whether to just reply to the previous version, put an explicit link or copy the cover letter verbatim from last time is up for discussion. I tent to think a link ought to be enough, because those familiar with the topic would not follow it (so they have no additional burden compared to direct copy), and new comers to that topic may be ok with links . [2] I tried following that style, e.g. https://public-inbox.org/git/20170630205310.7380-1-sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx/ > I don't mind following a link to the previous iteration to read the > back-story if I wasn't involved (it's a good idea to do that anyway to > see what previous reviews have already discussed). Such a back story would make an excellent merge message, too, as it explains the big picture more accurately, often shows alternatives considered etc. Stefan
