Re: Does Git really need a commit message to go with a commit?
- From
- Santi Béjar <santi@agolina.net>
- Date
- Apr 4, 2010, 12:37 UTC
- Message-ID
- <n2madf1fd3d1004040537jd61d70c6we5ba3b294dfc10be@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <h2m51dd1af81004040415xc7381f6cp1bf81bcfd684b99d@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 22:26, Santi Béjar <santi@agolina.net> wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason >> <avarab@gmail.com> wrote: >>> git-commit(1) doesn't allow you to make a commit without a commit >>> message. This is annoying and doesn't properly preserve history in >>> applications like snerp-vortex which replay a SVN dump into Git. You >>> have to add `$msg = "Git made me do it" unless length $msg' somewhere. >>> >>> Is there really no way to add a commit with no message with the git >>> tools? Will anything break if I manually construct a commit with no >>> message? Are commit messages inherently part of the format or does >>> git-commit(1) just think it knows better than me? >> >> Normally it does not make sense an empty commit message, so it is >> forbidden by default. But there is a flag (documented in the man page) >> since v1.5.4 (v1.5.3.7-994-g36863af git-commit --allow-empty, >> 2007-12-03) to allow it. > > Actually --allow-empty allows you to commit an empty /tree/. It > doesn't do anything for the commit message itself.
Arg! You are right, sorry for the noise. I should not write emails during the night...
I then suppose your only option is to use plumbing commands (see git(1)), in this case git-commit-tree. In general if you write scripts around git you should use only plumbing commands as they don't change the behavior.
HTH, Santi