From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] approxidate: allow ISO-like dates far in the future Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 03:47:25 -0500 Message-ID: <20141114084725.GA16030@peff.net> References: <20141113110325.GD8329@peff.net> <20141113110722.GB4386@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Colin Smith , git@vger.kernel.org To: Elia Pinto X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Nov 14 09:47:33 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 1XpCXU-000206-IF for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:47:32 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754660AbaKNIr2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Nov 2014 03:47:28 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:40270 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754631AbaKNIr2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Nov 2014 03:47:28 -0500 Received: (qmail 13114 invoked by uid 102); 14 Nov 2014 08:47:28 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 02:47:28 -0600 Received: (qmail 7066 invoked by uid 107); 14 Nov 2014 08:47:38 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 03:47:38 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 14 Nov 2014 03:47:25 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 06:46:19AM +0100, Elia Pinto wrote: > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_and_time_representation_by_country > > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_date > > Isn't not so good to refer to external resources in a commit message ? It is not good to omit any explanation and just include a link, like: Fixes the bug reported in http://... because people who are reading "git log" have to follow that link to even see what you are talking about (and the link might go away, or they might not have access at the time). It is fine, and even desirable, to summarize the relevant content of a resource and provide a link for people who want to dig further. In this case, I am saying "Wikipedia claims that nobody uses this format" and backing it up with a link to indicate which pages I checked. You do not have to follow the link to know what I am saying, but if you want to dig deeper, you at least know where I left off my research. Does that make sense? -Peff