From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F4B91FD99 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 18:17:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752958AbcH2SRY (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:17:24 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:51890 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751983AbcH2SRX (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:17:23 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 741683AEB8; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:17:22 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=d4sDEDqeCFGgB6nxpPtZD7lCdms=; b=paLcwb ZIQXwprvW7pTSfviTk2rtpe4IKILxD5G+Nv/EFMRIjX+u2RNH6xm0V/qsBOVllSL LRVFSoyC8FZrD9NSLQViqh52Nqgtd6rsBHIIRmeHA7/FzjT3yAhswSqFLWdokC/b EsvxOayAL6xYBhKmXWJfh7HC5xblh7SgXWDgY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=fzLHVVjYOiUMWBvJT1eYW9XQChkdVHXL bO1BgjRuOIa9SHut610CI3NLiGnMFniXQ8XOPZ0G0zGETpqmSSSSAS4at4HLpBAb CoIsomwQiUoHEX47NdIGRIOzVO6XnVsqOAGWCqFJOMt76psTR0n4mELCDFPwJmwX A6VWiuww338= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0DD3AEB7; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:17:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E39283AEB6; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:17:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Sixt Cc: Beat Bolli , Heiko Voigt , Stefan Beller , git@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gitk: align the commit summary format to the documentation References: <1472230741-5161-1-git-send-email-dev+git@drbeat.li> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:17:19 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Sixt's message of "Sat, 27 Aug 2016 09:21:33 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D436158E-6E14-11E6-AE57-F7BB12518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Sixt writes: > Am 26.08.2016 um 20:24 schrieb Junio C Hamano: >> Beat Bolli writes: >>> In 175d38c ("SubmittingPatches: document how to reference previous commits", >>> 2016-07-28) the format for referring to older commits was specified. >> >> is easier to read when pasted into a sentence than what the recent >> update 175d38ca ("SubmittingPatches: document how to reference >> previous commits", 2016-07-28) suggests to do, i.e. > > While it may be easier to read due to the extra mark-up, the resulting > text where such a quotation appears does not flow well, IMO. A commit > message text that references another commit reads more fluently > without the quotes around the summary line because the quoted text is > not so much a quotation that must be marked, but a parenthetical > statement. > > I absolutely welcome the proposed change to gitk, because I always > edit out the double-quotes. I think that is highly subjective, and as you very well may know, I've been referring to commits without double-quote pair, and have an obvious bias for something I am used to ;-) I do not see the "" as introducing a quotation. I just view it as very similar to the "" in the following sentence: The commit whose title is "foo bar" did not consider there is also need to consider baz. The whole thing is inside () pair, so I agree that with or without "" pair, it is possible to see where the title ends. So I do not have a strong opinion either way.