Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > WRT line lengths, probably 80-ish columns is the (unwritten?) rule. The Your patches will be reviewed on the mailing list. If you keep your line length to somewhere around ~70, the line will still fit within the 80-ish terminal width after a few rounds of review exchanges, with ">> " prefixed. That reasoning is mostly about the proposed commit log messages, but the same would apply to things like AsciiDoc sources. It is true that we do not write it down. Perhaps something like this is in order? diff --git i/Documentation/SubmittingPatches w/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index e734a3f0f1..68e9ad71a1 100644 --- i/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ w/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -280,6 +280,14 @@ or, on an older version of Git without support for --pretty=reference: git show -s --date=short --pretty='format:%h (%s, %ad)' <commit> .... +[[line-wrap]] + +Just like we limit the patch subject to 50 chars or so, the lines in +the proposed log message should be around 70 chars to make sure that +it still can be shown on 80-column terminal without line wrapping +after a handful of review exchanges add "> " prefix to them. + + [[sign-off]] === Certify your work by adding your `Signed-off-by` trailer > text files aren't really meant for end-user consumption (that's what the > manpage and HTML formats are for), so I think it's OK if the line > lengths are roughly in the same ballpark (no need to worry too much > about exact lengths). Yes, too. And it is one way to reduce patch noise and nicer to reviewers, when used moderately (i.e. removing a word and making a line to occupy only 50 columns when ajacent ones are 70 columns may still be better than reflowing. Leaving only a single word on such a line may not be reasonable and tucking the word after or before one of these ajacent 70-column lines would work better in such a case). Thanks.
