From: Erick Mattos Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:13:11 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Changed timestamp behavior of options -c/-C/--amend Message-ID: <55bacdd30910301513u6ba6a575w2c65358ff368aeab@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <55bacdd30910301505xe712b74m837dc862a6ee953@mail.gmail.com> 2009/10/30 Junio C Hamano : > Erick Mattos writes: > > A patch always changes something so the title "Changed ... behavior" does > not carry enough information Sorry but I thought It was enough.  First submitted patch. >(besides, you write logs as if you are making > an order to the codebase to "do this!"). Not a chance!  Just trying to help.  A way for paying back all the benefits I enjoy by your software. >> The code herein changes commit timestamp recording from a source in a >> more intuitive way. >> >> Description: > > Remove the above.  Instead, start with a description of what the current > code does, e.g. > >    Subject: commit -c/-C/--amend: allow 'current' timestamp to be used > >    When these options are used, the timestamp recorded in the newly >    created commit is always taken from the original commit. Demand accepted. > > Then the rest of your text flows much more nicely... > >> When we use one of the options above we are normally trying to do mainly >> two things: one is using the source as a template and second is to >> recreate a commit with corrections. >> >> In the first case timestamp should by default be taken by the time we >> are doing the commit, not by the source.  On the second case the actual >> behavior is acceptable. > > ... and the reader does not have to wonder what "the actual behavior" is; > instead you can say "the current behavior" here. > >> ... >> Those options are also useful for --amend option which is by default >> behaving the same. > > Also the reader does not have to wonder what "the same" means here. Done again. > I agree that the issue the patch addresses is worth improving, and I think > it is sensible to default to reuse the timestamp for -C and not to reuse > for --amend.  I am not sure about -c myself, but it probably shouldn't > reuse the timestamp by default. > > I however think (old|new)-timestamp is suboptimal. > > We already have --reuse-message, so why not trigger this with a single > option --(no-)reuse-timestamp? > Don't you think it would be a little big?  I had compared the option name so it would be more or less of reuse-message.