From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50026CCA479 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 06:11:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230507AbiGUGLy (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2022 02:11:54 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33200 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229568AbiGUGLw (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2022 02:11:52 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD6BA64C9 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 23:11:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4E81A8D42; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 02:11:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=N8JeVGsZ1GQ4SAo+wFUwRYBD7N80bNjELLTuNi ZGO2k=; b=F5A1a5YUqlV82dLLbx7zI91UAPLkHpB0o60QeWyk913lKyFpexe9oJ G6GwDf5Lgig2vgClfLyjBTdFRBh1gBJjTpqmc6zJOJEGtSqTHVM8B37xNTld6HQb PPk7EOA3f10vSBpiSDSHjla5Ma1dqX3ImXtmZWpZM0Iqz0t/4WkpE= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F021A8D41; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 02:11:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.105.40.190]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 715861A8D3D; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 02:11:47 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: Git Mailing List Subject: Re: On-branch topic description support? References: Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 23:11:46 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren's message of "Wed, 20 Jul 2022 22:25:19 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 00920D02-08BC-11ED-B09B-C85A9F429DF0-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Elijah Newren writes: > The cover letter material often includes stuff that would not make > sense for the merge message (e.g. "Rebased this version on master > because of conflicts with ...", "Changes since v3", "I'm a little > unsure of the logic in Patch 5", "Patch 3 might be controversial; take > a look", etc.) Would there be some kind of syntax for specifying the > part of the cover letter meant to be used in the merge commit message, > or would we just start out with it pre-populating the commit message > and expect the integrator to cull out the irrelevant parts? Yeah, I wanted to flesh out a bit more details on how this may work before writing more about it, but what I envisioned would go something along this line: * The authoring side would keep track of the description of the topic as a whole plus the description of inter-iteration changes, in the empty tip commit. There may be some convention with a minimum mark-up (similar to how an innocuous three-dash line serves the "end of the message" marker in a patch e-mail) to separate the latter from the former. * "format-patch --cover-letter" would take the above, and add range-diff etc. that is easier to compute mechanically; * "am" may take the above, and keep the whole thing; * "merge" would keep the "main topic description" part and strip out everything after it, including the inter-iteration comparison and the range-diff, most likely by commenting the latter out when presenting it to the integrator. So a lazy integrator can simply exit the editor to lose everything other than the topic description, and a more careful ones may refer to the supporting material to enhance/extend the topic description.