* Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Julia Lawall wrote: > > Is everything below the --- preserved in what is available via git log? > > No, none of it (if the patch is mechanically applied with e.g. git-am). > > Sometimes, useful information does indeed get lost because an author > didn't consider it "above ---"-worthy. > > ... > > I think the how information has some value, > > both to make people aware of what tools are useful for what kinds of > > tasks, and to help one understand what criteria were used in making the > > patch. > > That information is perfect for conservation mailing list archives. Uhm, a mailing list archives have numerous well-known disadvantages: they are not permanent or accessible in any acceptable fashion - URLs can go stale, certain mails get lost, the commit itself has no backlink to the lkml discussion [or whichever of the hundreds of maintainer lists it was discussed on], etc. etc. Claiming that information is 'perfect' for the mailing list but not good for the Git log is a double standard. The thing is, we need more information about how a given patch was originated, not less. We need more information about how efficient our tools are, not less. The main problems we have with commit logs today is not too much information but too little information. A log message should be well-structured, with the more important information near the top of it, the less important information at the end - but arguing that something as fundamental as the tools that motivated a change is silly on its face. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
