"Linus Arver via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > From: Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > This uses the phrase "commit message part" instead of "commit message". That much anybody can see from the patch. The question is, is the updated phrasing "more precise"? To me (a non native English speaker), both the original and the updated text say mostly the same thing, but the added word "part" actually made my reading hiccup a bit. It may be because for the word "part" to sit well, it is not clear enough what "your input" consists of in the updated text. If it were somehow clear to readers that "your input" consists of "commit message part", "some other message part", and "yet another message part", divided with a three-dash lines, then "commit message part" might become a good phrasing. An email can have any garbage in it, a format-patfch output has commit message and patch text. So "only the commit message" or "just the commit message" without "itself" may be an improvement in clarity, in the same sense that 01/11 made a sentence say the same sense with a fewer words, but personally I do not find the posted patch as-is that much of an improvement. I dunno. > Signed-off-by: Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/git-interpret-trailers.txt | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-interpret-trailers.txt b/Documentation/git-interpret-trailers.txt > index 593bc1a1f4e..3e60a6eaabc 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-interpret-trailers.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-interpret-trailers.txt > @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ OPTIONS > > --no-divider:: > Do not treat `---` as the end of the commit message. Use this > - when you know your input contains just the commit message itself > + when you know your input contains only the commit message part > (and not an email or the output of `git format-patch`). > > CONFIGURATION VARIABLES
