Re: git-am applies commit message diffs

["Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com>]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2026, at 08:47, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 06:34:05PM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>> > Hmm. If we add a new unambiguous marker after the ---, old versions
>> > would see '...' and know to cut the description. New versions would
>> > wait for <NEW MARKER> and properly ignore any diff/etc prior to this.
>> >
>> > Since <NEW MARKER> is after a ---, it would be ignored and not
>> > inserted as part of the commit message, and because all versions
>> > universally accept cruft between --- and the diff start, this should
>> > be acceptable right?
>>
>> Keeping in mind we'd have to use <NEW MARKER> as something that we
>> somehow reject as being a valid part of a commit message somehow, so
>> that you can't accidentally insert it, and we'd need to be careful
>> about rejecting formatting such a patch, and probably complaining on
>> the receiving end if we see multiple markers.. Trickier than it sounds
>> I imagine.
>
> Yeah, on reading your first message, I wondered if we would run into a
> commit message adding "---" followed by the new marker. If the new
> marker is forbidden, I guess that works. But how ugly is that new marker
> going to be, then? ;) We'll now see it in every email.

Maybe it could be something like `<symbols><space>`? It’s difficult to accidentally 
get a trailing whitespace into a commit.

> If we are going to modify what format-patch produces, I'd be more
> inclined to have it perform some reversible quoting on the commit
> message so that "---" and "diff" lines are not recognized. And then that
> quoting only has to kick in when a message would be ambiguous, so most
> people wouldn't even see it.

This sounds better anyway.

>[snip]