Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] shortlog: match commit trailers with --group

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> I wondered if this might confuse people reading the series, and almost
> called attention to it in the cover letter. Now that you've presumably
> read through and figured it out, is it worth going back and amending the
> commit message? It's more of a point for reviewers, I think, but perhaps
> somebody reading the commits later would care.

When I read history older than the immediate past, I usuall start at
the point 'git blame' found and then go back---going forward is much
less natural operation.  If my "git blame" session happens to hit an
earlier part of this series, perhaps the future-me would get a wrong
impression that originally the feature was in a limited form and was
extended later in a separate series?  I dunno.

I did wish the log message said what was going on while reading, but
that is a perfectionist in me speaking, and not a complaint that log
messages that did not say the future plans in the series were
offense that deserves a rejection.  A good summary in "What's cooking"
report would become a merge commit log message, and we can teach
users to go from 'git blame', find where the entire series was merged
to the mainline and then read from there---and it would be sufficient
if the summary of the topic described the endgame well.