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: AS11403 64.147.96.0/19 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E9DE20193 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 17:47:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA0934EA2; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 13:47:46 -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=wGpdhEMpoMxsMxBhmrpBXMDOMq8=; b=E1iYrK uwj3uexZRp6OoMfctsfZ+TeplDIGpuWQlLiIEZyXqvYs7OxG0dW1zPlx96i6lFZn IvtwaKtuwXnpMtMc5iXXWHya+3JEGpEDr1McIQtjxtlZ/vPyOqQUN/oPKIdRSgVp yJ3Qicl1UDO6ZXGchy+yIMtAcd+SV8vSFddG0= 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=pAPlNXIJyFjuG8iKvgD2OOns/CWjbP93 IpIPZLWtkiWJDleRDkdeW3j5ofi9g9saD70vIoJZ/8Wvk/UxAimgkN90Zgc/pOu+ SA4xFl7X22egMG4X64TOar9/ykdKlbN4TLr5ODW2RuTHNWTgO8S3baxOowXGs2p4 85VbkVobbpY= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 636E534EA0; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 13:47:46 -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-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E228D34E9F; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 13:47:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stefan Beller Cc: meta@public-inbox.org, "git\@vger.kernel.org" , Johannes Schindelin , Eric Wong Subject: Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path] References: Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:47:44 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Beller's message of "Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:22:57 -0700") 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: 8A386E5E-63D9-11E6-81DF-EE617A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com List-Id: Stefan Beller writes: > In your work flow, how do you respect the cover letter? > e.g. in 3787e3c16ced: > > Merge branch 'ew/http-backend-batch-headers' > > The http-backend (the server-side component of smart-http > transport) used to trickle the HTTP header one at a time. Now > these write(2)s are batched. > > * ew/http-backend-batch-headers: > http-backend: buffer headers before sending > > Is the text from the original author (and if so from which version > of the cover letter) or is it your work? The source of truth in the merge log message is the "What's cooking" report. I really prefer to write these in my own words, as that is a good yardstick to measure how much/little I understand the topic. If I cannot describe it concisely, in a way suitable as an entry in the release notes, that means I am merging a topic I do not have a good idea about, which is quite irresponsive. Forcing me to write these myself keeps me honest. Of course, if a cover letter describes the topic well, it would help me write the entry in the "What's cooking" report. It is a bit tricky to aim for the automation, though. The cover is an overview of the proposed log messages and typically tells a story "I do this, and then this, and finally that", plus a reroll-specific commentary like "what changed since the last round". On the other hand, the entries in the release notes gives a description of what happened from a third-party's point of view. They are told in different voice for different target audience.