Re: namespace convention for short-lived branches

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 04/22/2015 08:56 PM, Glenn Morris wrote:

> You can verify this by looking at the mails that come about when
> emacs-24 is merged to trunk, eg:
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-diffs/2015-03/msg00037.html
>
> There have been no complaints so far.

Like I thought, it's only showing the new commits (the merge commits in 
this case, both the "meaty" and "skipping" ones).

While it seems like the emails contain all the changes (squished 
together, which might appeal to people used to Bazaar's merges), you 
don't see the merged commits' messages (only their first lines).

And while in merges from emacs-24 you see the ChangeLog changes now, as 
soon as they're auto-generated there too, that will change. I'm not sure 
we want to include the full message of each commit inside the merge 
commit's message (which would be a way to fix that).

> At the risk of opening the chat-about-git-floodgates again, this prompts
> me to ask: is there a setting that will make such merge mails better?
> I'm using
>
> log --format=full -C --stat -p -m --first-parent
>
> I'm a simple-minded person who just wants to see
> "difference between master before this change was applied and after it
> was applied"

Yup, it seems you're already aware of what I described above.

> Sometimes the diffs don't seem to make sense. Eg in
>
>    http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-diffs/2015-03/msg00040.html
>
> The NEWS diff is completely bogus AFAICS (the NEWS file in emacs-24
> merges to NEWS.24 in trunk).

I believe that some of the edits there were done by hand, to resolve the 
conflicts. And some of NEWS entries were moved to NEWS.24 in a later 
merge commit, 98284ef.

So it seems correct.