Subject: Re: Merge git://www.linux-watchdog.org/linux-watchdog
From: Junio C Hamano <redacted>
Bcc: junio@pobox.com
--text follows this line--
Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:
Watchdog updates from Wim Van Sebroeck:
* git://www.linux-watchdog.org/linux-watchdog:
watchdog: fix GETTIMEOUT ioctl in booke_wdt
watchdog: update maintainers git entry
watchdog: Fix typo in pnx4008_wdt.c
watchdog: Fix typo in Kconfig
watchdog: fix error in probe() of s3c2410_wdt (reset at booting)
watchdog: hpwdt: clean up set_memory_x call for 32 bit
Having observed a handful of your recent merge messages, I am wondering if
it would help to teach fmt-merge-msg to include "from Wim Van Sebroeck" in
its output by taking the committer of the MERGE_HEAD into account.
Not worth the trouble?
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Having observed a handful of your recent merge messages, I am wondering if
it would help to teach fmt-merge-msg to include "from Wim Van Sebroeck" in
its output by taking the committer of the MERGE_HEAD into account.
Not worth the trouble?
Hmm. Maybe worth it.
So the reason I've started to try to do it is that I had a person
email me about appreciating the new merge messages, but he also said
he wanted to know who I pulled from. And I agree that that makes sense
as a real piece of information.
It's not *necessarily* the same person as the committer info, though.
It probably matches a very high percentage of the time, but the pull
request doesn't always come from the person doing the commits. The x86
people have this "tip" thing, and while branches tend to be owned by
the people doing the pull request, it's not a given. And sometimes you
have a submaintainer who pulled from *his* submaintainer, and didn't
have any work of his own, so he asks me to pull something where the
top is not him, but his submaintainer.
So I really dunno.
It might be interesting if the pre-written commit message had the top
committer in a comment (the same way pulling a tag has the tag author
in the comment about the tag verification). That way the information
would be right there when I edit the message, and since it's correct
99% of the time it would make it easier to just edit it in the editor
than have to cut-and-paste it from the email. But because it's not a
sure thing, it would be a comment-only thing where I can choose to
remove the '# ' in front of it. Maybe that would be the best of both
worlds - helping write a merge message without assuming it has to be
that way..
Linus