On 5 October 2015 at 08:18, Michael Tokarev <mjt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 05.10.2015 08:18, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Why? I like having the semantic patch in the commit message when >> there's any chance we'll want do the same mechanical change again later. >> >> You could save space and include it by reference, though: "Same >> Coccinelle semantic patch as is commit 74c373e". > > git commit messages aren't good documentation for various scripts > like this, this info will be lost in the noize. If it might be > better to keep such scripts in a separate file where it is easier > to find, or in a wiki page on the site. The key point is where to > find the info, git log is difficult for that, especially when you > don't know what to search for or that such a script exists in > there in the first place. > > On the other hand, when git log is cluttered by such a long messages > for such small changes, it becomes more difficult to find info which > you really look in git log -- namely, which changes were made that > might have introduced this regression, things like that. I think it can be useful when you're looking at a commit to know that it was automatically created, especially if it's a big commit. It means that if you're looking for a bug in it you can concentrate on the script that created it rather than the possibly large set of changes it produced, or if you're trying to cherry-pick it into another branch you can just apply the script instead. In a commit with a change this small it's not very significant either way, though. thanks -- PMM -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
