From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19914 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2014 19:48:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 19893 invoked by uid 89); 15 Jan 2014 19:48:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-wg0-f52.google.com Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f52.google.com) (74.125.82.52) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:48:55 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id b13so2257951wgh.19 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:48:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.20.33 with SMTP id k1mr4104585wie.34.1389815331470; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:48:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.205.136 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:48:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201401151212.43847.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <20140115121251.GM4639@adacore.com> <20140115162518.GL4762@adacore.com> <83eh4941yu.fsf@gnu.org> <201401151212.43847.vapier@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: small request regarding commits in binutils-gdb.git From: Fred Cooke To: Mike Frysinger Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Eli Zaretskii , Joel Brobecker , binutils Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00557.txt.bz2 I'd be with you, Mike, but these packages are regularly distributed without source control, as tarballs, and as such it's useful. For my own stuff it's not possible to build without git present, it's a prerequisite. The first line of a git commit should say enough about the why/what to stand alone. The rest should add detail. If the first line can not achieve this, it makes log view forms with only the first line pretty much useless. Line length restrictions are archaic IMO, however the standard tooling makes long lines look bad on purpose, so... In any case, I totally agree that pasting a "what changed" entry is not OK, and adding the full "I did it because" email content is a VERY good thing. eg > Removed duplicated code in bad style from XY arch. > > This code was added for ABC reason, however it duplicates LMNOP code and is in bad taste. Removing it lightens the maintenance burden, while retaining the functionality in the other superior form. What: Code was removed from XY arch Why: Because it was poor style and duplicated Detail: More human friendly verbose version of the same On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wednesday 15 January 2014 11:57:45 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 20:25:18 +0400 >> > From: Joel Brobecker >> > Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> > >> > But even with this example, it isn't just a repeat. >> >> I didn't say it was just a repeat, I said most of it just repeats. >> >> > The text before the ChangeLog says what the intent of the patch is, >> > and provides extra information that usually doesn't go into the >> > ChangeLog entry. For example, it says "This makes it usable in more >> > places". >> >> Why not have this as part of the log entry. Here's an example (from >> Emacs): > > i'd lobby for just stopping the ChangeLog practice altogether :) > -mike