From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-179.mta0.migadu.com (out-179.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFC1A388E7A for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 12:43:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.179 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784292185; cv=none; b=QicwoAFjAHgOxldgysbwz/WOlVAFPXown9mlevaF9cBkKcznXOMsh1eUx+S8IDCj1oAPDE73Rk1U7iuyvabZg7gVE0w77H97GTBZkX8AOmES/6DrNpPZPdS1s0HAw0kkkE00y0XHtpXzU3VpjiA9OQhzrnELeCLvs4VR7Z+eaqQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784292185; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zo2ue/qnGrVVoAQCtcbx5ZyYotWQF4uxeDch+9Zh5Us=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=g9dJO+SH40eDZBSEb6PMsQKPLbJRjc0bP4yDIZPNCFqGiV2M40Jw7PvYjymEy4NqBOYSsSIqzo9weTOu0Jd+WxM3rwjwSGeGi3kCADpm94mbGyJgG3gpxT52vNIZ+UBsCWq+bk+MfmiR0+00FTOsjb/Mh6s39s23PA7NvaUsPlM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=wyuan.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wyuan.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wyuan.org header.i=@wyuan.org header.b=PVZ+7VKh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.179 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=wyuan.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wyuan.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wyuan.org header.i=@wyuan.org header.b="PVZ+7VKh" Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 20:42:53 +0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wyuan.org; s=key1; t=1784292180; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=T8L3MmyXqjrYrEVQ7K3GZn0VIsxV3BhNU4Stm63KZCM=; b=PVZ+7VKhJ2vi3Xoi4ppNbRjELDIitW6E1qGbFM0pVs1FXO8qrDrOd71+rG7s0G+AMBLI8h drXeQtPen5aiVoAXTAdv+9m8jeZt3915/s1RWUB775IqWXlIYbLTu7rU3BGJqE2jVVlpUe X3wc8ubit0fKB+gjCoIVp2YwddveKX4ttA/TP3yXGi1Vlp4jb0MvBw5P0+u5d7qVMxJawP AT+It2ghdBrR8VYmuNa1pzvDZrUxXS9+KjJyHQMKk6h/UcvLlbesSIKAFxtZpoYjnF2UJf NpuLuA8pN2iHuBK7j4WsDE6c4QJ1xEhWuk03PwcTsiirVEESOCLdtBGLL9K8+Q== X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Weijie Yuan To: "D. Ben Knoble" Cc: Junio C Hamano , Michael Montalbo , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] SubmittingPatches: clarify expected structure of commit log message Message-ID: References: <20260711192650.2417665-1-gitster@pobox.com> <20260711192650.2417665-2-gitster@pobox.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 06:46:05PM -0400, D. Ben Knoble wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 10:42 AM Weijie Yuan wrote: > > > [snip] > > I think this might confuse readers. Now you place these points in > > parallel: > > > > 1. Title > > 2. Body > > 3. Observation (The Status Quo) > > 4. Solution Design (The Approach) > > 5. Implementation (The Execution) > > Without commenting on "confuse," I find this style of heading > > Thing (The Other Thing) > > needlessly suggests an LLM's involvement with the text. Aha, kind of. But I guess Junio didn't use LLM here ;-) > That by itself is not grounds for my objection; instead, I'll note > that often the parenthetical restates the original header in some way. > That makes it redundant. (In some cases in the wild I have seen > examples where the 2 were not synonymous, which _is_ confusing :) True. > > But acatually you mean: > > > > 1. Title > > 2. Body > > The body typically follows three parts: > > a. Observation > > b. Solution Design > > c. Implementation > > > > But I haven't written much about adoc, so I don't know its syntax and > > how to write it. > > This is nice. If I had to suggest anything further, it would be "don't > be afraid of long headings": > > 1. Title: Summarize the change > 2. Body: Describe [Justify?] the change > a. Observe the status quo > b. Explain your approach [solution/design/etc.] > c. Command the code to change [or: Describe the implementation/execution] > > ? I agree. More explanatory descriptions here are very likely to enable contributors to express their ideas more clearly and understandably.