Re: Referring to revisions in the git future.

[Stefan Monnier]

> That's fine - for ChangeLogs.

Forget the ChangeLog file.  Their content is just a redundant copy of the
commit message.

> But if you write run-on text without summary lines *in comments*,

I didn't say not to write a summary line.  I opposed your recommendation
"don't write the traditional GNUish run-on change comment".

> Yes, git commits are cheap.

The same was said of Bzr commits.  I'll see when I start using it
more extensively.

> Heh.  And, of course, you don't understand that the exact reason I did
> this was the ChangeLog conventions - I was trying to be a good soldier
> and make changesets in which content changes were properly grouped
> with their ChangeLog entries, and this meant in practice I could not
> generally allow a commit to touch multiple directories containing
> ChangeLogs.

There's no problem with a single commit that touches many ChangeLog files.
Don't ever decide how to split a patch based on what the ChangeLog files
should contain.  That's completely backassward.


        Stefan