On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:21:59 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote: > On Nov 16, 2011 11:39 PM, "Pieter Praet" <pieter@praet.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:54:35 +0200, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> > wrote: > > > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:37:50 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org> > wrote: > > > > No further explanation needed. > > > > --- > > > > NEWS | 14 +++++++------- > > > > 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > The 'No further explanation needed.' should be *BELOW* the waistline > (---) ;); > > > now it goes to the commit message which is probably not what anybody > wants. > > > > > > > That was intended :) > > > > Empty commit messages are frowned upon (even if the commit subject is > > sufficiently descriptive), so "rather a pointless one than none?" :) > > Generally I think the message should be self-contained and understandable > without the subject line, so IMHO a full meaningful sentence is better than > one/none, even if it's repetition. > > BR, > Jani. That would indeed have been the most sensible thing to do. Could someone (who -unlike me- has already submitted his/her public SSH key for commit access) add something along those lines to the Patch Formatting guidelines [1] ? Perhaps just quote Carl's statement [2] ? Peace -- Pieter [1] http://notmuchmail.org/patchformatting/ [2] id:"87ocmwok2w.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org"