Re: [Gnu-arch-users] minor patch-log file format questions

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>

    > Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:
    > >     > (1) Why are empty headers included?  

    > > No particular reason.   

    > Hmmm, do you think it's safe to change?  I do find they make logs
    > significantly hard to read.

I think it's safe.  Nothing out there it might break will be hard to
fix and I can't imagine any drastic conseuquences.


    > >     > (2) If you use commit's -L option, why is the single description 
line
    > >     >     repeated twice, once in the Summary: line, and once in the 
log body?

    > > I don't think it matters much.  This format is easier to read when
    > > you're skipping past the headers just to look at the body of a log
    > > message.

    > It's all those empty headers hiding the Summary: header.  :-)

    > I find this behavior very annoying (I've stopped using commit -L because
    > of it), but I guess if you like it you're unlikely to take a patch to
    > change it.

    > How about a new option to commit that's just like -L, except that it
    > explicitly only sets the Summary: line?

    > Say:

    >   -s, --summary TEXT     log with TEXT as summary, log-for-merge output 
in body

    > It might also make things more readable to move the Summary: header to
    > the end of the headers, just before the body text.

    > Of course I'll gladly provide a patch do these.


How about:

        tla commit --summary TEXT
                Set the summary, use an empty body

        tla commit --summary TEXTA  --L TEXTB  
                Summary is TEXTA, body is TEXTB

        tla commit -L TEXT
                Current behavior (both summary and body are TEXT)



    > Thanks,

Likewise.


-t