From: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 09:11:00 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch: use $curr_branch_short more
Message-ID: <5221B324.7020908@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s1qyF70eSCM4L1Yr=U02AwFZ0TNqiDvag8Qdzzi9GS1Mw@mail.gmail.com>

Am 31.08.2013 10:22, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
>> Subject: branch: use $curr_branch_short more
>
> Why? I don't think that summary explains the reason for being for this
> patch, also, it starts with branch: instead of pull:

You're right about "branch" vs. "pull".  I'll better go back to bed. ~_~

> Subject: pull: trivial simplification
>
> With that summary, people would have an easier time figuring out if
> they need to read more about the patch or not.

"trivial simplification" is too generic; we could have lots of them.  A 
summary should describe the change.  Its low complexity can be derived 
from it -- using an existing variable a bit more is not very exciting.

But I wouldn't call that patch trivial because its correctness depends 
on code outside of its shown context.

The reason for the patch isn't mentioned explicitly.  Perhaps it should 
be.  I felt that using something that's already there instead of 
recreating it is motivation alone.

René