Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: clean up commit message tips

Adam Monsen [off-list ref] writes:

Removed uncommon acronyms in the "Checklist" section. I had to look up
"iow" online, but this documentation should stand alone (without online
access) as well as commit messages.

We have only a handful of instances of that phrase in the codebase (run
"git grep" for them), so I am not strongly opposed to spelling it out, but
use of IOW is quite common on this list---I suspect that it is largely
because Linus uses the phrase quite often.  Cf.

    $ git log | grep -e IOW -e '^Author: ' | grep -B1 -e IOW

Leave wiggle room for including URLs in commit messages.

I don't think the updated text is too bad, but I don't very much like the
above "wiggle room".

The guideline is written to suggest what you absolutely should include; it
is obviously Ok to add other things as necessary.  If common sense tells
the reader external references will help recollection, the guideline does
not forbid to include them. IOW, there are enough wiggle rooms already.

Modify the section about trivial changes slightly... it makes more sense
that it is discouraging diffs pasted in emails as opposed to patches
generated with "git am".

s/am/format-patch/;

Remove recommendations on commit messages from the "Make separate
commits for logically separate changes" section,...
sentence about breaking apart big commits into separate patches.

While I do not particularly hate this part, I think people who did the
"Checklist vs Long Version" meant to make each of them stand on its own.
Lazy people (or people who think they are experienced enough) read the
former, while the others who pride themselves being thorough will skip the
"for-lazy-people" digest version and read only "the real thing".

So overall, I am not enthused by this version.  Input from others may
be appreciated.