All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: fmt-merge-message: add empty line between tag and signature verification
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 10:05:20 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7vtxz4tcmn.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1205250850001.19607@i5.linux-foundation.org> (Linus Torvalds's message of "Fri, 25 May 2012 09:02:03 -0700 (PDT)")

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

> When adding the information from a tag, put an empty line between the 
> message of the tag and the commented-out signature verification 
> information.
>
> At least for the kernel workflow, I often end up re-formatting the message 
> that people send me in the tag data. In that situation, putting the tag 
> message and the tag signature verification back-to-back then means that 
> normal editor "reflow parapgraph" command will get confused and think that 
> the signature is a continuation of the last message paragraph.
>
> So I always end up having to first add an empty line, and then go back and 
> reflow the last paragraph. Let's just do it in git directly.
>
> The extra vertical space also makes the verification visually stand out 
> more from the user-supplied message, so it looks a bit more readable to me 
> too, but that may be just an odd personal preference.
>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> ---
> This is a throw-away patch - apply or not as you prefer. I thought I'd 
> send it out and see what people thought.
>
> I don't feel *that* strongly about it.

Speaking as one of "people" (as opposed to "the maintainer to decide one
way or the other in bikeshedding"), I think this makes sense.

> Btw, I'd also like to see the merge notes (notably the conflict file list) 
> before the generated shortlog, but that seems to really not work with the 
> current fmt-merge-message model.  Oh well.

Postponing to assess if such a change is feasible, I am not sure if that
ordering makes more sense than the current one.  Is the objective to more
strongly motivate people to explain what happened to the conflicts?

  reply	other threads:[~2012-05-25 17:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-05-25 16:02 fmt-merge-message: add empty line between tag and signature verification Linus Torvalds
2012-05-25 17:05 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2012-05-25 17:20   ` Linus Torvalds
2012-05-25 18:06     ` Martin Fick
2012-05-25 18:35   ` Ralf Thielow

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=7vtxz4tcmn.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org \
    --to=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.