Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> In Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt let's clarify what
> we mean by "complete message".
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt b/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt
> index 2db9779d54..788258c3ad 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt
> @@ -232,8 +232,9 @@ Fields that have name-email-date tuple as its value (`author`,
> `committer`, and `tagger`) can be suffixed with `name`, `email`,
> and `date` to extract the named component.
>
> -The complete message of a commit or tag object is `contents`. This
> -field can also be used in the following ways:
> +The complete message (subject, body, trailers and signature) of a
> +commit or tag object is `contents`. This field can also be used in the
> +following ways:
Hmph, I regret asking what is "complete", i.e. as opposed to what.
The above makes it even unclear if things like "signature on commit"
is part of the complete message. I _think_ you meant the part after
stripping the object header, so "signature in a signed tag is part
of 'complete message', while signature in a signed commit is not",
which feels somewhat strange.
But then, it may be easier to understand if we said
The message in a commit or a tag object is `contents`, from
which `contents:<part>` can be used to extract various parts out
of.
without introducing "complete".
In any case I think patches 1 & 2 are definite improvement.
Thanks.
