Stefano Lattarini wrote: > 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?
Maybe "getopt: ..." "fixup" is too suggestive of a bug "fix" What do you think of "nsc"? (no semantic change)