From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] CodingGuidelines: on comparison Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 16:31:16 -0400 Message-ID: <20140502203116.GA32500@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1398894312-30763-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <1398894312-30763-8-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <20140501213657.GC14441@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 02 22:31:24 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WgK78-0001ab-Vt for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 02 May 2014 22:31:23 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753050AbaEBUbT (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 16:31:19 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:43808 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752991AbaEBUbS (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 16:31:18 -0400 Received: (qmail 21722 invoked by uid 102); 2 May 2014 20:31:18 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 02 May 2014 15:31:18 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 02 May 2014 16:31:16 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:18:34AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 02:45:11PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> See http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/3903/focus=4126 > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano > > > > Don't you often complain about submitters referencing a discussion > > in a commit message without providing some context or summary? > > Yes, but the summary of the discussion would be identical to the new > text added by the patch to the documentation tree in this case, so I > didn't find a good introductory text before "See $URL". Perhaps > > This comes up from time to time. See $URL for the original > discussion. > > but I do not know if that is much better. I meant something even less in-depth. Your message says only "on comparison", and I did not even know what "this" in your sentence above would mean until I followed the link. There are arguments for writing a conditional as "a < b" rather than "b > a", or vice versa. Let's give guidance on which we prefer. Not a big deal, but I think it is easy when you have just written the patch to forget that a reviewer or a reader of "git log" six months have no has no context at all. -Peff