On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 01:08:35PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 05.09.24 12:56, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 04:58:20PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > > Huang, Ying wrote: > > > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: [..] > > > > > You may move Cc list after '---', so it won't unnecessarily pollute the commit > > > > > message. > > > > > > > > Emm... It appears that it's a common practice to include "Cc" in the > > > > commit log. > > > > > > Yes, just ignore this feedback, it goes against common practice. Cc list > > > as is looks sane to me. > > > > It seems nobody can give technical arguments why it's better than just keeping > > them outside of the commit message. Mantra "common practice" nowadays is > > questionable. > > Just look at how patches look like in the git tree that Andrew picks up. > (IIRC, he adds a bunch of CCs himself that are not even part of the original > patch). I know that and it's historical, he has a lot of the scripts that work and when he moved to the Git it was another long story. Now you even can see how he uses Git in his quilt approach. So, it's an exceptional and not usual workflow, hence bad example. Try again :-) > Having in the git tree who was actually involved/CCed can be quite valuable. > More helpful than get_maintainers.pl sometimes. First of all, there is no guarantee they _were_ involved. From this perspective having Link: tag instead has much more value and supports my side of arguments. Anything else? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
