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

[Jim Meyering]

Stefano Lattarini wrote:

> 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?

Maybe "getopt: ..."
"fixup" is too suggestive of a bug "fix"
What do you think of "nsc"? (no semantic change)