On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Johannes Schindelin
<johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Wed, 4 May 2016, Christian Couder wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunsh...@sunshineco.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.ba...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> bisect--helper: use OPT_CMDMODE instead of OPT_BOOL
>> >
>> > This subject is too low-level, talking about implementation details,
>> > whereas it should be giving a high-level summary of the change.
>>
>> When a patch is all about a low level detail, I think it is good to
>> talk about the detail in the subject.
>
> Well, this is not the case here. The intent of this commit is to prepare
> for other command modes.
It depends if you think that describing the long term intent of a
commit is more important than just describing what the commit actually
does in the subject.
In my opinion the long term intent of the commit is better explained
in the commit message. (And the patch indeed talks about what the long
term intent is, even if it could probably be improved.)
> So... why not just say "bisect--helper: prepare for modes other than
> 'next-all'"?
For (an extreme) example, in my patch series about libifying "git
apply" functionality, should many of the patches have subjects like
"builtin/apply: prepare for an apply.{c,h} lib"?
--
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
