On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 03:29:48PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > I'm also not sure it really matters all that much either way. If you buy > > my argument that this is just about placing the general era of the > > commit in the mind of the reader, then "just before v2.11" or "just > > after v2.11" are about the same. > > If it's that unreliable, I'd rather just have the hash, to be honest. Well, that was sort of my point. :) I think the hash is the most interesting part, and everything else is gravy for the reader to save them time digging into the commit. > > I think that's a good idea if something is in fact being fixed. But > > there are many other reasons to refer to another commit in prose (or > > even outside of a commit message entirely). > > Sure, but in those cases do we need the ability to query on them? I'm not sure what you mean. We were talking about how to reference commits in prose. I think a "Fixes" trailer eliminates the need to do so (or least makes it redundant) in _some_ cases, but the other cases are still of interest. > To me it seems similar to having a policy on how to reference people > in commit messages (e.g. "always include their email address"), so > that I can grep for a contributor to see how they were involved in a > patch. If it's not structured data, then at some point I stop > worrying so much about machine parsability. Sure. All I'm really saying is "always include the hash". -Peff
