This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
small request regarding commits in binutils-gdb.git
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: binutils at sourceware dot org, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:12:51 +0400
- Subject: small request regarding commits in binutils-gdb.git
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
Please forgive this message for all (most) of you who already know
this, but I happen to notice a few commits here and there, where
the revision log contains a copy/paste of the ChangeLog entry.
This was a pretty typical and accepted practice when were using CVS.
But, the convention with git tools is that the first line should
be the subject of the commit, and this subject should be followed
by an empty line before the rest of the revision log starts (if
there is text afterwards).
Below are examples of commit revision logs which follow that convention:
> daily update
> PR symtab/16426
> * dwarf2read.c (dwarf2_get_dwz_file): Call gdb_bfd_record_inclusion.
> (try_open_dwop_file): Ditto.
Here is one, however, that does not follow the convention:
> PR gas/16434
> * config/tc-z80.c (wrong_match): Provide format string to
In the example above, making the "PR gas/16434" by stripping
the leading spaces, and adding an empty line after it would
However, I'd like to take this opportunity to suggest a practice
that some of us have started adopting on the GDB project, which
is to make the revision log something close to the email we'd send
to submit patch for including in binutils-gdb.git.
It would look like this:
> psymtab cleanup patch 3/3
> This last patch removes "partial" from the names of
> expand_partial_symbol_names and map_partial_symbol_filenames.
> It also renames expand_partial_symbol_names to match the
> struct quick_symbol_functions "method" that it wraps:
> This patch also adds two parameters to expand_symtabs_matching
> so that it can fully wrap the underlying quick_symbol_functions method.
> This makes it usable in more places.
> I thought of having a cover function that still had the same
> signature as the old expand_partial_symbol_names function,
> but I couldn't think of a good name, and it wasn't clear it was
> worth it anyway.
> * symfile.h (expand_symtabs_matching): Renamed from
> expand_partial_symbol_names. Update prototype.
> (map_symbol_filenames): Renamed from map_partial_symbol_filenames.
> * symfile.c (expand_symtabs_matching): Renamed from
The upside is that it makes it easier for you to submit your patch,
even if it submitted a long time after you actually wrote the patch.
Just use "git send-email", and voila.
For the rest of the community, using a meaningful subject, one that
actually gives a hint at what it does, is something that I have
found to be really helpful. For instance, "Provide format string
to as_warn" can be more helpful when scanning through a list
of commits than "PR gas/16434".
I am also considering the idea of writing a small hook that
would reject new commits introducing commits where the "empty line
after subject" rule is not followed. Would that be an acceptable