{"thread":{"id":"32564","subject":"Enabling scissors by default?","startedAt":"2013-01-08T21:42:30Z","lastAt":"2013-01-09T17:40:26Z","messageCount":6,"participants":["Phillip Susi","Junio C Hamano","Jeff King"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"206335","messageId":"50EC92C6.7090509@ubuntu.com","threadId":"32564","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Enabling scissors by default?","fromName":"Phillip Susi","fromEmail":"psusi@ubuntu.com","sentAt":"2013-01-08T21:42:30Z","receivedAt":"2013-01-08T21:42:30Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"psusi@ubuntu.com","avatar":null},"body":"-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\nI was wondering why am's scissors option is not enabled by default.\nIt seems a very handy feature, but I'm reluctant to use it when\nsending patches because the recipient has to notice the scissors and\nremember to pass --scissors to git am.\n\nCould this be made the default?\n\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)\nComment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/\n\niQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ7JLGAAoJEJrBOlT6nu75iDYIANFiiH50RlL9WKEfaoybeA5K\nZLodBze1TcAYIx2/ad6qY+XCoq98+nVXTkv2IAleDiNlfeIhKD24UTWNCysT8p1J\n5KeFfR4paxLJLJKkmSL5s3DJbyjLlJWcxD7vGku6F4k35NmY3VYR4rJ/CVv0YRrs\np4nNG/EXWBo3/ngiL9QS4E65N0CfcOOjn48RQUmk1DGXSFNHP4L1KuJ4dA9cs9BC\n5KmNwh5X6OOal0Lf+ezbxzvoGMwQmhBAxx3t8JQR3E22dLQlUq7stlPl5LDd+Cis\nXWfNk3B4NuFTum9LqWnM5TN89WCCFh4/pskdRd5ONF51G0jbuF/hBFbwU05qL/4=\n=Qd94\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n"},{"id":"206337","messageId":"7vvcb7b8lc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"32564","inReplyTo":"50EC92C6.7090509@ubuntu.com","subject":"Re: Enabling scissors by default?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2013-01-08T22:42:07Z","receivedAt":"2013-01-08T22:42:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Phillip Susi <psusi@ubuntu.com> writes:\n\n> I was wondering why am's scissors option is not enabled by default.\n\nIt is very easy to miss misidentification of scissors line; as a\ndangerous, potentially information losing option, I do not think it\nshould be on by default.\n\nAnother reason (and this is the original one) why it is not enabled\nis to discourage the contributors from overusing scissors -- >8 --\nline.  If you always have to write too much stuff before the proper\nexplanation of your patch, so that the integrator has to use -c\noption all the time, you are explaining your patches wrong.\n"},{"id":"206341","messageId":"50ECAAE2.2020507@ubuntu.com","threadId":"32564","inReplyTo":"7vvcb7b8lc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: Enabling scissors by default?","fromName":"Phillip Susi","fromEmail":"psusi@ubuntu.com","sentAt":"2013-01-08T23:25:22Z","receivedAt":"2013-01-08T23:25:22Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"psusi@ubuntu.com","avatar":null},"body":"-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\nOn 01/08/2013 05:42 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> It is very easy to miss misidentification of scissors line; as a \n> dangerous, potentially information losing option, I do not think\n> it should be on by default.\n\nI suppose if it only requires one instance of >8 or <8 and one -, it\nmight be *slightly* dangerous, but if it required a slightly longer\nminimum line length, it would be pretty darn unlikely to get triggered\nby accident, and of course, is easily disabled.\n\n> Another reason (and this is the original one) why it is not\n> enabled is to discourage the contributors from overusing scissors\n> -- >8 -- line.  If you always have to write too much stuff before\n> the proper explanation of your patch, so that the integrator has to\n> use -c option all the time, you are explaining your patches wrong.\n\nI often see patches being tweaked in response to feedback and\nresubmitted, usually with a description of what has changed since the\nprevious version.  Such descriptions don't need to be in the change\nlog when it is finally applied and seem a perfect use of scissors.\n\nUsually such version to version descriptions are put in a cover\nletter, but if you are only submitting a single patch instead of an\nentire series, using a cover letter seems silly when you could just\nput the comments in one email and clearly mark them as not needing to\ngo into the final changelog.\n\n\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)\nComment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/\n\niQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ7KriAAoJEJrBOlT6nu755UkIALIT3T5yHH5i+0HOrXLlXzQR\n+S2jJfFZ8Kcc+kleiEJ3uLFVGTLMpRyjJFKceOuB4/TdJFUivrYJHWJxcKmW8WzK\nBJKZOjt/jv9r8Qt/AB7KA45S7awfQnOWkg6KQlJa1IM0nUPbo4upgMlWar9l7vjz\nHkr7geuHY4fsVUJ7R0rYPcT3pue8ywsT4a9o/ocstfXmC05IrLKQtzO4TuvfiaTb\nyBG+rAPKz36zfxCN5NyKExZO6v/LnCKym/PH4a6wYIeTUz1EvuaPy5lQOo6ORQ4h\nxbSyBRDPN4yiVgNXfSQmGKwd9XPqs6h8Z0q3X5mGZyOXurw0JFRJlJ3v8hHIvqg=\n=Rn7z\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n"},{"id":"206343","messageId":"7vr4lvb63a.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"32564","inReplyTo":"50ECAAE2.2020507@ubuntu.com","subject":"Re: Enabling scissors by default?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2013-01-08T23:36:09Z","receivedAt":"2013-01-08T23:36:09Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Phillip Susi <psusi@ubuntu.com> writes:\n\n> On 01/08/2013 05:42 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> It is very easy to miss misidentification of scissors line; as a \n>> dangerous, potentially information losing option, I do not think\n>> it should be on by default.\n>\n> I suppose if it only requires one instance of >8 or <8 and one -, it\n> might be *slightly* dangerous, but if it required a slightly longer\n> minimum line length, it would be pretty darn unlikely to get triggered\n> by accident, and of course, is easily disabled.\n\n\"Easily disabled\" is never a good enough reason to change the long\nestablished default of not doing anything funky unless the user\nexplicitly asks it to do things differently.\n\nYou could introduce a new configuration variable \"am.scissors\" and\npersonally turn it on, though.  Setting that variable *does* count\nas the user explicitly asking for it.\n\n> I often see patches being tweaked in response to feedback and\n> resubmitted, usually with a description of what has changed since the\n> previous version.  Such descriptions don't need to be in the change\n> log when it is finally applied and seem a perfect use of scissors.\n\nPutting such small logs under \"---\" line is the accepted practice.\n"},{"id":"206392","messageId":"20130109171011.GB5332@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"32564","inReplyTo":"7vr4lvb63a.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: Enabling scissors by default?","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2013-01-09T17:10:11Z","receivedAt":"2013-01-09T17:10:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 03:36:09PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> You could introduce a new configuration variable \"am.scissors\" and\n> personally turn it on, though.  Setting that variable *does* count\n> as the user explicitly asking for it.\n\nI think we have mailinfo.scissors already.\n\n> > I often see patches being tweaked in response to feedback and\n> > resubmitted, usually with a description of what has changed since the\n> > previous version.  Such descriptions don't need to be in the change\n> > log when it is finally applied and seem a perfect use of scissors.\n> \n> Putting such small logs under \"---\" line is the accepted practice.\n\nMaybe it is just me, but I find the scissors form more readable, because\nthe \"cover letter\" material often serves to introduce and give context\nto the patch (e.g., \"Thanks for your feedback. I've tried to do X, and\nit came out well. Here's the patch.\" serves as an introduction, and\nlogically comes before the commit message itself).\n\nThat does not say anything one way or another about how dangerous or not\nit might be to enable scissors by default. Just my two cents that I like\nthe scissors style for patches that come as part of a discussion (and I\nprefer the \"---\" style when making comments on the contents of a patch;\ni.e., when the comments make more sense to be read after reading the\ncommit message to understand what the patch does).\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"206394","messageId":"7vk3rm6yr9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"32564","inReplyTo":"20130109171011.GB5332@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Enabling scissors by default?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2013-01-09T17:40:26Z","receivedAt":"2013-01-09T17:40:26Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:\n\n> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 03:36:09PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>\n>> You could introduce a new configuration variable \"am.scissors\" and\n>> personally turn it on, though.  Setting that variable *does* count\n>> as the user explicitly asking for it.\n>\n> I think we have mailinfo.scissors already.\n\nOh, spoiler.  I was hoping that I could entice new people into doing\na little digging on their own X-<.\n\n\n>> > I often see patches being tweaked in response to feedback and\n>> > resubmitted, usually with a description of what has changed since the\n>> > previous version.  Such descriptions don't need to be in the change\n>> > log when it is finally applied and seem a perfect use of scissors.\n>> \n>> Putting such small logs under \"---\" line is the accepted practice.\n>\n> Maybe it is just me, but I find the scissors form more readable, because\n> the \"cover letter\" material often serves to introduce and give context\n> to the patch (e.g., \"Thanks for your feedback. I've tried to do X, and\n> it came out well. Here's the patch.\" serves as an introduction, and\n> logically comes before the commit message itself).\n>\n> That does not say anything one way or another about how dangerous or not\n> it might be to enable scissors by default. Just my two cents that I like\n> the scissors style for patches that come as part of a discussion (and I\n> prefer the \"---\" style when making comments on the contents of a patch;\n> i.e., when the comments make more sense to be read after reading the\n> commit message to understand what the patch does).\n\nYes, scissors have their uses, namely when presenting a patch in a\ndiscussion context.  Otherwise we wouldn't have introduced it in the\nfirst place.\n\nBut the \"desription of what has changed since the previous version\"\nuse case I was responding to is where the space below \"---\" is meant\nto be used from very early days of Git (the convention established\non the kernel list).\n"}]}