On Sunday, 10 February 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Jakub Narebski wrote: > >> Still I think it is would be nice to have original commit id in a header >> when importing from foreign SCM. First, it would not pollute commit >> message, which would be identical with the original commit message >> (which allows easy two-way interaction). Second, it is much easier and >> much less error prone to extract it by machine. > > I cannot agree to either reason. It is _not_ a git specific header, so it > does not belong in the commit header. Well, that, and the fact that the same commit imported using two different tools, one using this header and one didn't would result in different commit object... although if they differ in adding original revision id to the commit message commit objects would differ too. > Also, I find it does not clutter the commit message _at all_, but adds > information that the user might find useful. Revisions ids can be long, and together with prefix introducing original SCM revision identifier be longer than customary 80 characters. Besides, "git cherry-pick" was changed to _not_ add information about original commit id by default. Shouldn't this apply also for import? > Lastly, I cannot see _any_ reason why it should be _easier_ or _less error > prone_ to put an "original commit id" into the commit header than into the > commit body. Well, if commit message talks about foreign commit IDs... -- Jakub Narebski Poland - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
