Am 31.08.2013 19:20, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
A summary should contain as much information that would allow me to
skip the commit message as possible.
If I can't tell from the summary if I can safely skip the commit
message, the summary is not doing a good job.
"trivial simplification" explains the "what", and the "why" at the
same time, and allows most people to skip the commit message, thus is
a good summary.
No patch should be skipped on the mailing list. As you wrote, trivial
patches can still be wrong.
When going through the history I can see that quickly recognizing
insubstantial changes is useful, but if I see a summary twice then in my
mind forms a big question mark -- why did the same thing had to be done
yet again?
As an example, both 0d12e59f (pull: replace unnecessary sed invocation)
and bc2bbc45 (pull, rebase: simplify to use die()) could arguably have
had the summary "trivial simplification", but I'm glad the author went
with something a bit more specific.
I agree that some kind of tagging with keywords like "trivial", "typo"
and so on can be helpful, though.
Again, triviality and correctness are two separate different things.
The patch is trivial even if you can't judge it's correctness.
Well, in terms of impact I agree.
To me, what you are describing is an obvious patch, not a trivial one.
An obvious patch is so obvious that you can judge it's correctness
easily by looking at the diff, a trivial one is of little importance.
That's one definition; I think I had the mathematical notion in mind
that calls proofs trivial which are immediately evident.
René
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
