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

[Stefano Lattarini]

On 01/15/2012 06:26 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
>> 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"
>
If I'm not mistaken, "fixup" is semi-common git lingo for a commit that
fixes a blunder in the preceding one.  Ideally, the fixup should be squashed
in the commit that introduced the blunder; but where this is not possible
(e.g., because, like here, that has already be pushed to a public repo) a
"fixup" in the summary makes it clear what is the nature of the commit
("this commit shouldn't be here, but we were too fast to push previous one,
so here we go").

> What do you think of "nsc"? (no semantic change)
>
That seems quite confusing to me, and not natural at all.

But enough bikeshedding for today :-)  I'm just happy if you follow the
"topic: brief desc" format in the summary line.

Thanks,
  Stefano