From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Automatically line wrap long commit messages. Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 22:05:51 -0700 Message-ID: <7v64jm2380.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20060529085738.GB29500@spearce.org> <7virnp8a30.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060529094605.GB27194@spearce.org> <7vhd373o15.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060531021808.GC21222@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed May 31 07:06:01 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FlIu6-0002BH-9E for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 31 May 2006 07:05:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751699AbWEaFFy (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 01:05:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751703AbWEaFFy (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 01:05:54 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao09.cox.net ([68.230.241.30]:52642 "EHLO fed1rmmtao09.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751699AbWEaFFx (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 01:05:53 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao09.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060531050552.XNQD24290.fed1rmmtao09.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Wed, 31 May 2006 01:05:52 -0400 To: Shawn Pearce User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Shawn Pearce writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> If we supported multiple -m (presumably each becomes a single line?) >> with internal fmt, I do not see how it would become less work. >> >> $ git commit -w60 -m "This is my message." \ >> -m '' \ >> -m 'This is the body. Etc....' >> >> looks more typing to me, even without the second line to force >> the empty line between the summary and the body. > > Actually I was thinking each -m would be its own paragraph so blank > lines would split each -m and maybe the -w60 should be a config > option in .git/config or .gitrc so it doesn't always need to be > supplied on the command line. Now that makes the distinction between the current: $ git commit -m 'This is my message. This is the body. Etc....' vs. the proposed multi-em: $ git commit -m 'This is my message.' \ -m 'This is the body. Etc....' Presumably Etc.... will be an multiline argument to -m. The distinction is even more blurry to me than before. Emacs users would just do "ESC q" and vi users would know how to filter the file contents through fmt, so this seems to come from aversion against invoking your $EDITOR. I just do not see why. Having said that, I do realize that the current behaviour of accepting multiple -m without complaining and discarding all but the last one silently is far worse than what is being proposed, and I do not see downside to the multiple -m patch, so let's apply that. You can have your "fmt -w60" provided if it is made into an option.