On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 09:19:31AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 03:29:07PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 02:47:50PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 10:33:32AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > > > The commit ID is what automation should key off of. The short
> > > > description is only for human consumption.
> > >
> > > Right, so if the actual commit message isn't included so humans can
> > > read it then what was the point of including anything?
> >
> > Personally as a human reading commits in a terminal window I prefer the
> > abbreviated form.
>
> Frankly, I think they are useless, picking one of yours at random:
>
> Fixes: 4e48f1cccab3 "NFSD: allow inter server COPY to have... "
>
> And sadly the '4e48f1cccab3' commit doesn't appear in Linus's tree so
Ow, apologies. Looks like I rebased after writing that Fixes tag.
I wonder if it's possible to make git warn....
Looks like a pre-rebase hook could check the branch being rebased for
"Fixes:" lines referencing commits on the rebased branch.
> now we are just totally lost, with a bad commit ID and a mangled
> subject line.
For what it's worth, that part of the subject line is enough to find the
original commit (even to uniquely specify it).
> > I haven't been doing the redundant parentheses and quotes either. Was
> > that dreamt up by an Arlo Guthrie fan? ("KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED
> > YOURSELF?")
>
> Well it seems like you are just aren't following the standard style
> at all. :(
Yeah, I don't like it.
I'll admit I don't know why *this* exactly is what I'm choosing to feel
stubborn about.
--b.
