From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6841F405 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 02:51:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727873AbeLTCvO (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:51:14 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:46462 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1726604AbeLTCvO (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:51:14 -0500 Received: (qmail 1149 invoked by uid 109); 20 Dec 2018 02:51:14 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 02:51:14 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 27415 invoked by uid 111); 20 Dec 2018 02:50:46 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:50:46 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:51:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:51:12 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Jonathan Nieder Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org, Han-Wen Nienhuys , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: Referring to commits in commit messages Message-ID: <20181220025111.GA24002@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20181217165957.GA60293@google.com> <877eg5fwd5.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20181219182216.GA17309@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20181219183927.GA228469@google.com> <20181219224810.GA20888@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20181219232948.GD228469@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181219232948.GD228469@google.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 03:29:48PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > I'm also not sure it really matters all that much either way. If you buy > > my argument that this is just about placing the general era of the > > commit in the mind of the reader, then "just before v2.11" or "just > > after v2.11" are about the same. > > If it's that unreliable, I'd rather just have the hash, to be honest. Well, that was sort of my point. :) I think the hash is the most interesting part, and everything else is gravy for the reader to save them time digging into the commit. > > I think that's a good idea if something is in fact being fixed. But > > there are many other reasons to refer to another commit in prose (or > > even outside of a commit message entirely). > > Sure, but in those cases do we need the ability to query on them? I'm not sure what you mean. We were talking about how to reference commits in prose. I think a "Fixes" trailer eliminates the need to do so (or least makes it redundant) in _some_ cases, but the other cases are still of interest. > To me it seems similar to having a policy on how to reference people > in commit messages (e.g. "always include their email address"), so > that I can grep for a contributor to see how they were involved in a > patch. If it's not structured data, then at some point I stop > worrying so much about machine parsability. Sure. All I'm really saying is "always include the hash". -Peff