On Sep 6, 2014 11:11 AM, "Stephan Beal" <sgb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Philip Bennefall <phi...@blastbay.com> wrote: >> >> whether it should really say branch rather than tags. Is this a bug, or is it really meant to be branch rather than tags? > > > It's probably just an oversight. IIRC, the --tag option to commit was added relative recently (within the past year), and in my experience most people provide the message on the command line, so they never see that. i honestly can't remember the last time i let an scm start up an editor to type in my commit message (several years, at the very least).
I do occasionally, and the rational came from an article I read on git commits. Roughly: put the briefest 80-col description on one line, next para expands on that as necessary, and longer description follows (if necessary). Our current default commit descriptions don't do anything useful with this type of formatting, but it's easy to imagine spinning up tooling that would. Facilities that used this (or similar) style of formatting would encourage more people to adopt the style, which would not be a bad thing. > -- > ----- stephan beal > http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ > http://gplus.to/sgbeal > "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
