Re: [RFC/PATCH] log: add log.firstparent option

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 10:18:45AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > [1] While reading the old "git commit --notes" thread recently, Johan
> >     Herland gave a plausible confusing example:
> >
> >     ...
> >       Why
> >       ---
> >
> >       To show that "---" can be part of a commit message. :)
> 
> That is all true, but such a commit already is problematic when used
> as an input to "am", regardless of where the sign-off goes.

Right, and that is why I think there is no problem at all with treating
"---" specially as part of format-patch. What I was trying to say here
is that doing it for "git commit" is less obviously OK. Many people do
not use "am" at all, and are otherwise fine with a message like the one
above (tools like rebase used to eat their message, but I think that was
fixed long ago).

> We could invent a new and more prominent delimiter, teach
> "format-patch" to add that between the log and patch if and only if
> the log has a three-dashes line in it (with an option to override
> that "if and only if" default), and teach "mailsplit" to pay
> attention to it.  People who are relying on the fact that a
> three-dashes line in the local log message will be stripped off at
> the receiving end have to pass that "The commit has three-dash in it
> as a cut-mark on purpose; don't add that prominent delimiter" option
> when formatting their patches out for submission.
> 
> But I somehow think it is not worth the effort.  It is fairly well
> established that three-dash lines are cut marks and Johan's example
> log message above deliberately violates only to spite itself.  My
> knee-jerk advice is that people can just rephrase s/Why/Reason/ and
> be done with it.

Yeah, I agree it is not worth the effort. Three-dash is a totally fine
micro-format for email messages, and I do not see anybody complaining
about it. I just think that people who do not use "am" should not have
to care about it.

-Peff