Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I wondered if this might confuse people reading the series, and almost > called attention to it in the cover letter. Now that you've presumably > read through and figured it out, is it worth going back and amending the > commit message? It's more of a point for reviewers, I think, but perhaps > somebody reading the commits later would care. When I read history older than the immediate past, I usuall start at the point 'git blame' found and then go back---going forward is much less natural operation. If my "git blame" session happens to hit an earlier part of this series, perhaps the future-me would get a wrong impression that originally the feature was in a limited form and was extended later in a separate series? I dunno. I did wish the log message said what was going on while reading, but that is a perfectionist in me speaking, and not a complaint that log messages that did not say the future plans in the series were offense that deserves a rejection. A good summary in "What's cooking" report would become a merge commit log message, and we can teach users to go from 'git blame', find where the entire series was merged to the mainline and then read from there---and it would be sufficient if the summary of the topic described the endgame well.
