On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> Let's do both: "This fixes the bug introduced by the foobar patch from Sep >> 12th (git commitid a2c23897bc). >> >> I like to see the date of the referred patch in the commit message, to get >> an immediate idea of whether it was a 5-year old change or something from >> the previous day. But the commitid is also nice so you can immediately >> copy-paste that without reading through the old commit logs. > > +1. > > Having the git id is very useful, and putting the date in makes it no > *less* informational than what we had before, if/when we move away > from git and it's hashes.
That works for me. But should we make a practice of writing the ENTIRE SHA-ID rather than an abbreviated form, so that we could more easily replace 'em later if need be? I think that would be a good idea for other reasons anyway - it's always possible - though admittedly unlikely - that a later commit could introduce a conflict with the first 10 characters, but a conflict with the whole string is pretty much discountable. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
