This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][www] svnwrite.html: recommend giving checkin messages a title (was Re: Moving to git)
- From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gnu dot org" <gcc at gnu dot org>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 05:55:54 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][www] svnwrite.html: recommend giving checkin messages a title (was Re: Moving to git)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55D61512 dot 8010002 at redhat dot com> <1440099112 dot 18943 dot 38 dot camel at surprise> <20150820223226 dot GA27127 at gate dot crashing dot org> <55D656B7 dot 9000707 at redhat dot com> <1440201251 dot 18943 dot 62 dot camel at surprise>
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 07:54:11PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > >> In the git world, the first line of the commit message has special
> > >> meaning, being treated as the "title" of the commit.
> > >
> > > It would be nice if we could use a real commit message, not just a short
> > > title line; for example, people who prepare their patches in git already
> > > have that, and use it with format-patch as you say.
> > I think that's what David was suggesting; a short title line, followed
> > by a blank line, followed by a more substantive commit message.
> > This change doesn't need to be tied to the git transition; it could
> > happen either before or after.
> Attached is a patch for the website which advises doing this when
> +<p>The log message for a checkin should be a single line giving a
> +descriptive title for the checkin, followed by a blank line, followed by
> +the complete ChangeLog entry for the change. This is the git convention;
> +giving titles to checkins makes life easier for developers using git
> +mirrors of SVN. Typically the descriptive title should be the "Subject"
> +line of the relevant gcc-patches thread (without any "[PATCH]" or "[PING]"
It advises to *not* have an explanatory text, and it says that *not*
having it is the Git convention (which of course is not true).