On 01/15/2012 06:26 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> 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" > If I'm not mistaken, "fixup" is semi-common git lingo for a commit that fixes a blunder in the preceding one. Ideally, the fixup should be squashed in the commit that introduced the blunder; but where this is not possible (e.g., because, like here, that has already be pushed to a public repo) a "fixup" in the summary makes it clear what is the nature of the commit ("this commit shouldn't be here, but we were too fast to push previous one, so here we go").
> What do you think of "nsc"? (no semantic change) > That seems quite confusing to me, and not natural at all. But enough bikeshedding for today :-) I'm just happy if you follow the "topic: brief desc" format in the summary line. Thanks, Stefano