From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [PATCH] merge: add instructions to the commit message when editing Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:43:00 +0100 Message-ID: <878vkoamu3.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> References: <7vd3a1caxb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <0c9a880c7dca27520f957446c6b0e72e93609b03.1327954927.git.trast@student.ethz.ch> <7vy5soaons.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Thomas Rast , To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 30 22:43:12 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rrz0K-0005Ld-Dq for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:43:12 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753446Ab2A3VnG (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:43:06 -0500 Received: from edge10.ethz.ch ([82.130.75.186]:20823 "EHLO edge10.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751975Ab2A3VnF (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:43:05 -0500 Received: from CAS10.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.210) by edge10.ethz.ch (82.130.75.186) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:43:01 +0100 Received: from thomas.inf.ethz.ch.ethz.ch (80.219.158.96) by cas10.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.210) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:43:02 +0100 In-Reply-To: <7vy5soaons.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:03:35 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Originating-IP: [80.219.158.96] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano writes: > Thomas Rast writes: > >> The sentence about justification is one of the few things about >> standard git that are not agnostic to the workflow that the user >> chose. > > We try to be agnostic at plumbing level, but I do not think we ever made > such a promise at the Porcelain level like "git merge". On the contrary, > we try to encourage good workflows by coding behaviours to support BCP to > Porcelain commands. Am I misreading what you were trying to say here? Oh, I was just trying to preempt a possible argument why this is wrong. Maybe I was a bit over-eager in doing so ;-) >> +static const char merge_editor_comment[] = >> +N_("Please enter the commit message for your merge commit. You should\n" >> +"justify it especially if it merges an updated upstream into a topic\n" >> +"branch.\n" >> +"\n" >> +"Lines starting with '#' will be ignored, and an empty message aborts\n" >> +"the commit.\n"); > > I am tempted to rewrite this a bit, perhaps something like ... > > Please enter the commit message for your merge commit. Explain > why the merge is necessary, especially if it merges an updated > upstream into a topic branch. > > ... because people who need to be told to "justify it" would probably be > helped by a more explicit "explain _why_ it is needed". Why not. The "explain..." might be construed as a bit too coercive, but I cannot come up with a way to defuse it (well, except again tacking on "you should") and yours is certainly much clearer. -- Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch