Stephen Frost <> writes:
> Further, we seem agreed that URLs are what we want to have in the
> commits rather than just the message-ID.

If we're set on doing that, then ...

> The question on the table at the moment seems to be if we want to use
> or as the
> prefix.  Personally, I don't really care and would prefer we just decide
> something and move on to more interesting technical discussion.  I don't
> really agree with the complaints levied against,
> but I'm also not particularly bothered by one long line in each commit
> message.

... the shortener isn't really doing anything for us.  You end up with a
line longer than 80 characters with message-IDs generated by either gmail
or the bug report form, for instance these examples from recent commits:


And those two sources comprise the majority of references these days.
Even dropping the Discussion: keyword wouldn't get us to lines that don't
wrap.  So we might as well go with the canonical form, which I take to

Another convention that apparently needs to be discussed is whether or
not to point at a whole thread, as in this example from yesterday:


I'm kind of -1 on that; it's adding 5 characters for not much.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to