In message m2mxxreamw.fsf@ohwell.denx.de Detlev Zundel wrote:

...

may I ask if there is reason why merge commits don't have a summary?

Yes, you may. Actually this is a good question.

...

I find those summaries (enabled with git config [--global] merge.summary true) very hand to see what was changed with the merge commit.

I didn't even know about that feature, so thanks for poking us. Checking the documentation, it seems like the name will change soon however (man git-fmt-merge-msg):

   merge.summary
       Synonym to merge.log; this is deprecated and will be removed
       in the future.

But apart from that, I also like the feature. Wolfgang, what do you think?

I have no preference.

If there is an agreement (or at least no protests) we can add 'merge.log'.

Shall we?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

Hi Alexander,

may I ask again for opinions about enabling that feature?

I also would like to see it. Wolfgang, is there anything that you don't like about this option?

Cheers Detlev

Hi Wolfgang,

Dear Detlev Zundel,

In message m2sjxrxm38.fsf@ohwell.denx.de you wrote:

...

...

may I ask again for opinions about enabling that feature?

I also would like to see it. Wolfgang, is there anything that you don't like about this option?

There is two things that make me hesitate:

1. I wonder if it might have negative side effects. If it was generally considered a good thing I would expect that it was set as default, but it ain't.

Personally I cannot think of negative side effects. Checking recent linux commits, it seems Linus is using this himself[1] which would be a pro argument I guess.

2. I don't know what exactly needs to be done. My understandaning is that I can either switch this on globally for all repositories I'm working with (which I do not like), or it needs to be set manually in each and every clone of the U-Boot repo where a merge might be done.

As far as I can see, we should turn it on per repo so that (future) custodians would get the setting through cloning. Apart from that I even don't see anything against turning it on globally.

When I throw away a repo for some reason and start with a new clone, I can be pretty sure that I will forget to re-enable this.

Then we should enable it in "the master" repo from which you clone.

What needs to be done about custodian repos etc.?

As far as I understand it, we cannot change anything in already cloned repositories, so every custodian would need to do this configuration. On the other hand we can add this setting (yes, I volunteer) on our git server for all repos, so future clones will get it.

In other words, it sounds like a thing that causes effort and can go wrong nevertheless.

It will cause effort, yes, alas I don't see what can go wrong. It will be a policy that we can never enforce for individual users, so there remains a chance that individuals will do merges without the setting.

On the other hand, I guess what really counts is whether _you_ (doing all practically relevant merges) use it or not. So essentially it is a question of whether you can add that in all of your repos.

So I'd rather wait until either this option is used as defualt by some new version of git, or at least until there is a broader request and consensus among the custodians.

In this thread you previously wrote:

If there is an agreement (or at least no protests) we can add 'merge.log'.

Shall we?

Have you become more pessimistic?

Cheers Detlev

[1] http://git.denx.de/?p=linux-2.6-denx.git;a=commit;h=8cad7f06e3b1d3f9a28bb738...

On Sunday, January 09, 2011 11:25:52 Wolfgang Denk wrote:

Detlev Zundel wrote:

...

...

may I ask again for opinions about enabling that feature?

I also would like to see it. Wolfgang, is there anything that you don't like about this option?

Do you have any comments or pros or cons for/against this request?

this feature sounds like something end developers enable in their .git/config (or ~/.gitconfig). i dont think it's something that gets enabled in the remote repos we push to. which means it's up to Wolfgang for the most part to enable it on his system since he is about the only guy doing the merges.

as for the actual request, it doesnt matter to me either way. ive found the output to be neither useful nor "blocking" in any way. -mike

Hi Wolfgang,

On Wednesday 12 January 2011 18:47:45 Detlev Zundel wrote:

...

...

...

may I ask again for opinions about enabling that feature?

I also would like to see it. Wolfgang, is there anything that you don't like about this option?

Do you have any comments or pros or cons for/against this request?

I'll repeat my answer given in this thread previously[1] for the benefit of the now wider audience:

Personally I cannot think of negative side effects. Checking recent linux commits, it seems Linus is using this himself which would be a pro argument I guess.

Also as I wrote much earlier, the new format gives me additional valuable information that is useful to me. So I'm all for it.

Yes, I also think its a good idea. Lets give it a try.

Thanks.

Cheers, Stefan

-- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-0 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: office@denx.de