From 841d81180e6754b18559220087decf01f504b203 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael J Gruber Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:31:24 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] rev-list-options.txt: typo fix Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano --- Documentation/rev-list-options.txt | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt index 44a2ef1de1..9c47ad885b 100644 --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ limiting may be applied. -n 'number':: --max-count=:: - Limit the number of commits output. + Limit the number of commits to output. --skip=:: From e0adb84cc65a399629fbb1b2d0e5764330bf4f39 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adam Monsen Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 12:51:37 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] diff format documentation: clarify --cc and -c The description was unclear if -c or --cc was the default (--cc is for some commands), and incorrectly implied that the default applies to all the diff generating commands. Most importantly, "log" does not default to "--cc" (it defaults to "--no-merges") and "log -p" obeys the user's wish to see non-combined format. Only "diff" (during merge and three-blob comparison) and "show" use --cc as the default. Signed-off-by: Adam Monsen Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano --- Documentation/diff-generate-patch.txt | 11 +++++++---- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/diff-generate-patch.txt b/Documentation/diff-generate-patch.txt index 3ac2beac62..c57460c03d 100644 --- a/Documentation/diff-generate-patch.txt +++ b/Documentation/diff-generate-patch.txt @@ -74,10 +74,13 @@ separate lines indicate the old and the new mode. combined diff format -------------------- -"git-diff-tree", "git-diff-files" and "git-diff" can take '-c' or -'--cc' option to produce 'combined diff'. For showing a merge commit -with "git log -p", this is the default format; you can force showing -full diff with the '-m' option. +Any diff-generating command can take the `-c` or `--cc` option to +produce a 'combined diff' when showing a merge. This is the default +format when showing merges with linkgit:git-diff[1] or +linkgit:git-show[1]. Note also that you can give the `-m' option to any +of these commands to force generation of diffs with individual parents +of a merge. + A 'combined diff' format looks like this: ------------ From d0f7dcbf424e1739437ffe477d87088ca6cb3432 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:58:19 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] SubmittingPatches: clarify the expected commit log description Earlier, 47afed5 (SubmittingPatches: itemize and reflect upon well written changes, 2009-04-28) added a discussion on the contents of the commit log message, but the last part of the new paragraph didn't make much sense. Reword it slightly to make it more readable. Update the "quicklist" to clarify what we mean by "motivation" and "contrast". Also mildly discourage external references. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano --- Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 26 ++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index 72741ebda1..c3b0816ed7 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -10,10 +10,18 @@ Checklist (and a short version for the impatient): description (50 characters is the soft limit, see DISCUSSION in git-commit(1)), and should skip the full stop - the body should provide a meaningful commit message, which: - - uses the imperative, present tense: "change", - not "changed" or "changes". - - includes motivation for the change, and contrasts - its implementation with previous behaviour + . explains the problem the change tries to solve, iow, what + is wrong with the current code without the change. + . justifies the way the change solves the problem, iow, why + the result with the change is better. + . alternate solutions considered but discarded, if any. + - describe changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz" + instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed + xyzzy to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase + to change its behaviour. + - try to make sure your explanation can be understood without + external resources. Instead of giving a URL to a mailing list + archive, summarize the relevant points of the discussion. - add a "Signed-off-by: Your Name " line to the commit message (or just use the option "-s" when committing) to confirm that you agree to the Developer's Certificate of Origin @@ -90,7 +98,10 @@ your commit head. Instead, always make a commit with complete commit message and generate a series of patches from your repository. It is a good discipline. -Describe the technical detail of the change(s). +Give an explanation for the change(s) that is detailed enough so +that people can judge if it is good thing to do, without reading +the actual patch text to determine how well the code does what +the explanation promises to do. If your description starts to get too long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your commit to finer grained pieces. @@ -99,9 +110,8 @@ help reviewers check the patch, and future maintainers understand the code, are the most beautiful patches. Descriptions that summarise the point in the subject well, and describe the motivation for the change, the approach taken by the change, and if relevant how this -differs substantially from the prior version, can be found on Usenet -archives back into the late 80's. Consider it like good Netiquette, -but for code. +differs substantially from the prior version, are all good things +to have. Oh, another thing. I am picky about whitespaces. Make sure your changes do not trigger errors with the sample pre-commit hook shipped