On 01/15/2012 05:58 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: > > [SNIP] > > Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> Yes, awaiting review. For projects where I only contribute minimally, I >> want to >> wait for an explicit ACK before *any* commit, whether bug-fix or not. That's >> why I'm also waiting for a review before pushing this patch: >> >> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2012-01/msg00011.html> >> >> which fix a bug more difficult to spot but which, when hit, can have much >> more >> heinous consequences (details in the commit log). > > I've just reviewed that. > And I've just pushed the patch after fixing the nits you pointed out :-)
> [SNIP] > >> I like this more as well. I assume you'll go ahead and make the change >> yourself, >> right? > > Sure: > Thanks. I have a just a minor "meta-nit" ... > From 08a7320746ee8c7fb9d0855a09a85ffd21228a8c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jim Meyering <meyer...@redhat.com> > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:57:54 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] refine syntax of previous change > I suggest we using either of these as the commit summary instead: getopt: refine syntax of previous change cosmetics: refine syntax of previous change fixup: refine syntax of previous change in the hope of helping the "topic: brief description" format to catch up even more. WDYT? Regards, Stefano