Re: Adding git-commit highlight mode?

[Björn Bidar]

Konstantin Kharlamov <Hi-Angel@yandex.ru> writes:

> On Fri, 2025-01-03 at 23:14 +0200, Björn Bidar wrote:
>> Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On 1/2/2025 10:30 AM, Konstantin Kharlamov wrote:
>> > > But Emacs seems to be the only widely popular editor that still
>> > > doesn't
>> > > provide OOTB at least syntax highlight for git-commit format. So,
>> > > does
>> > > anyone have opposition to adding a major mode that would be bound
>> > > to
>> > > filenames like `COMMIT_EDITMSG` and others, and would provide the
>> > > aforementioned highlight?
>> > 
>> > For what it's worth, I wrote a very simple package to do this for
>> > myself, since I don't use Magit. (I'm just so used to the Git
>> > command
>> > line that I've never taken the time to mess with Magit.)
>> > 
>> 
>> Is there a way we can do this without reinventing the wheel? E.g. by
>> including Jonas's git-commit mode into Emacs?
>
> Using Jim's mode comes as close as it gets to not reinventing the
> wheel. As mentioned by Stefan elsewhere in the thread, Jonas' git-
> commit that is part of magit can't be easily included for license
> reasons.

Most of the code was written by Jonas. If either the other authors code
is replaced or they have also assigned their copyright to the FSF it
could be included.


>> PS: It would be very beneficial to not uses Github for Emacs
>> development but other FOSS platforms such as Codeberg. No need to
>> feed
>> Copilot with our code to copy it into other non-FOSS code.
>
> As mentioned by Dick, Emacs is mirrored to Github anyway.

Dicks rather trolling comment aside, I don't think that is a reason to
use Github.

> search it seems neither Codeberg nor Gitlab has an active Emacs mirror,
> right?
> That means there's no other option besides Github for
> contributors to store their local changes to before sending them
> upstream.

I don't see a problem there, create an account on which server you prefer and 
fetch from Savannah.
No need to use Github to download the Emacs repository.

> Obviously, a new contributor wouldn't have an account to
> git.savannah, and even if they do, git.savannah doesn't allow to fork a
> repo, instead it requires to store everyone the changes to their local
> branch on a shared repo, which seems unsafe on a bigger scale.

This has nothing to do with Savannah, you don't have to "fork" a
repository that's a Forge thing to map pull requests (and to easier map
commit refs between the source and the fork but that's OT).