Re: [PATCH] avoid new warning about undefined $ARGV[0]

[Stefano Lattarini]

On 01/15/2012 05:58 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
>> Yes, awaiting review.  For projects where I only contribute minimally, I 
>> want to
>> wait for an explicit ACK before *any* commit, whether bug-fix or not.  That's
>> why I'm also waiting for a review before pushing this patch:
>>
>>   <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2012-01/msg00011.html>
>>
>> which fix a bug more difficult to spot but which, when hit, can have much 
>> more
>> heinous consequences (details in the commit log).
> 
> I've just reviewed that.
>
And I've just pushed the patch after fixing the nits you pointed out :-)

> [SNIP]
>
>> I like this more as well.  I assume you'll go ahead and make the change 
>> yourself,
>> right?
> 
> Sure:
>
Thanks. I  have a just a minor "meta-nit" ...

> From 08a7320746ee8c7fb9d0855a09a85ffd21228a8c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Jim Meyering <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:57:54 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] refine syntax of previous change
>
I suggest we using either of these as the commit summary instead:

  getopt: refine syntax of previous change
  cosmetics: refine syntax of previous change
  fixup: refine syntax of previous change

in the hope of helping the "topic: brief description" format to catch up
even more.  WDYT?

Regards,
  Stefano