# [PATCH v2] Place cache.h at the first place to match general rule 3 messages from 2014-03-02 to 2014-03-02. Participants: Sun He, Eric Sunshine, He Sun. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/36015 ## Sun He, 2014-03-02 02:18 Subject: [PATCH v2] Place cache.h at the first place to match general rule Message-ID: <1393726697-2816-1-git-send-email-sunheehnus@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1393726697-2816-1-git-send-email-sunheehnus%40gmail.com ``` Signed-off-by: Sun He Helped-by: Duy Nguyen --- "PATCH v2" Fix the spelling bug of general in subject as is suggested by brain m.calson The general rule is if cache.h or git-compat-util.h is included, it is the first #include. I parsed all the source files, and find many files start with builtin.h. And git-compat-util.h is the first in it. So they don't need any change. sigchain.c and test-sigchain.c are started with "sigchain.h" I checked sigchain.h, and it didn't import any bug. But to keep consistant with general rule, we should take this patch. Thanks. sigchain.c | 2 +- test-sigchain.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/sigchain.c b/sigchain.c index 1118b99..faa375d 100644 --- a/sigchain.c +++ b/sigchain.c @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ -#include "sigchain.h" #include "cache.h" +#include "sigchain.h" #define SIGCHAIN_MAX_SIGNALS 32 diff --git a/test-sigchain.c b/test-sigchain.c index 42db234..e499fce 100644 --- a/test-sigchain.c +++ b/test-sigchain.c @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ -#include "sigchain.h" #include "cache.h" +#include "sigchain.h" #define X(f) \ static void f(int sig) { \ -- 1.9.0.138.g2de3478.dirty ``` ## Eric Sunshine, 2014-03-02 04:34 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Place cache.h at the first place to match general rule Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAPig%2BcRAni1m2xReUvFkx1muvzTLGo1PF8iTuQdXUzLn3yXNkg%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1393726697-2816-1-git-send-email-sunheehnus@gmail.com> ``` On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Sun He wrote: > Signed-off-by: Sun He > Helped-by: Duy Nguyen Footers should follow a temporal order. For instance: 1. Duy helped you. 2. You revised your patch based upon his input. 3. You signed off before submitting the patch. Hence, your Signed-off-by: should follow Helped-by:. > --- > "PATCH v2" Fix the spelling bug of general in subject as is suggested > by brain m.calson There are two type of information you want to convey to readers: 1. Explanation and justification of the change itself. This is recorded for all time in the project history as the commit message. It is placed above the "---" line. 2. Commentary related to this version / submission of the patch which is not likely to be helpful or meaningful to people reading the "official" project history via the commit messages. It is placed below the "---" line. Explaining what you changed since the previous version of the patch, as you do above, is a good thing. It's not meaningful once the patch is officially accepted into the project; it's only meaningful to people following the progression of the patch on the mailing list, so it definitely belongs below the "---" line, as you did here. However... > The general rule is if cache.h or git-compat-util.h is included, > it is the first #include. This information explains the patch's purpose, thus it is relevant to the project history. It belongs above the "---" line. > I parsed all the source files, and find many files start with builtin.h. > And git-compat-util.h is the first in it. So they don't need any change. This could go either way. It tells how you arrived at this version of the patch (relevant below "---"), but also explains why the patch does not have to touch additional files (relevant above "---"). It's probably okay to leave it below "---". > sigchain.c and test-sigchain.c are started with "sigchain.h" > I checked sigchain.h, and it didn't import any bug. > But to keep consistant with general rule, we should take this patch. Commentary suitable for below "---". > Thanks. > > sigchain.c | 2 +- > test-sigchain.c | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/sigchain.c b/sigchain.c > index 1118b99..faa375d 100644 > --- a/sigchain.c > +++ b/sigchain.c > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ > -#include "sigchain.h" > #include "cache.h" > +#include "sigchain.h" > > #define SIGCHAIN_MAX_SIGNALS 32 > > diff --git a/test-sigchain.c b/test-sigchain.c > index 42db234..e499fce 100644 > --- a/test-sigchain.c > +++ b/test-sigchain.c > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ > -#include "sigchain.h" > #include "cache.h" > +#include "sigchain.h" > > #define X(f) \ > static void f(int sig) { \ > -- > 1.9.0.138.g2de3478.dirty ``` ## He Sun, 2014-03-02 07:59 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Place cache.h at the first place to match general rule Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAJr59C2xV43P2cZv-V5rm0-ea3G1W7BGK9exA%3D0obPgEHUsGEA%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` 2014-03-02 12:34 GMT+08:00 Eric Sunshine : > On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Sun He wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Sun He >> Helped-by: Duy Nguyen > > Footers should follow a temporal order. For instance: > > 1. Duy helped you. > 2. You revised your patch based upon his input. > 3. You signed off before submitting the patch. > > Hence, your Signed-off-by: should follow Helped-by:. > OK, got it. Thank you very much. >> --- >> "PATCH v2" Fix the spelling bug of general in subject as is suggested >> by brain m.calson > > There are two type of information you want to convey to readers: > > 1. Explanation and justification of the change itself. This is > recorded for all time in the project history as the commit message. It > is placed above the "---" line. > > 2. Commentary related to this version / submission of the patch which > is not likely to be helpful or meaningful to people reading the > "official" project history via the commit messages. It is placed below > the "---" line. > > Explaining what you changed since the previous version of the patch, > as you do above, is a good thing. It's not meaningful once the patch > is officially accepted into the project; it's only meaningful to > people following the progression of the patch on the mailing list, so > it definitely belongs below the "---" line, as you did here. > > However... > >> The general rule is if cache.h or git-compat-util.h is included, >> it is the first #include. > > This information explains the patch's purpose, thus it is relevant to > the project history. It belongs above the "---" line. > OK, Got it. I will move above the "---" line soon, and I will pay attention not to make mistakes like this from now on. Thank you very much. >> I parsed all the source files, and find many files start with builtin.h. >> And git-compat-util.h is the first in it. So they don't need any change. > > This could go either way. It tells how you arrived at this version of > the patch (relevant below "---"), but also explains why the patch does > not have to touch additional files (relevant above "---"). It's > probably okay to leave it below "---". > >> sigchain.c and test-sigchain.c are started with "sigchain.h" >> I checked sigchain.h, and it didn't import any bug. >> But to keep consistant with general rule, we should take this patch. > > Commentary suitable for below "---". > >> Thanks. >> >> sigchain.c | 2 +- >> test-sigchain.c | 2 +- >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/sigchain.c b/sigchain.c >> index 1118b99..faa375d 100644 >> --- a/sigchain.c >> +++ b/sigchain.c >> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ >> -#include "sigchain.h" >> #include "cache.h" >> +#include "sigchain.h" >> >> #define SIGCHAIN_MAX_SIGNALS 32 >> >> diff --git a/test-sigchain.c b/test-sigchain.c >> index 42db234..e499fce 100644 >> --- a/test-sigchain.c >> +++ b/test-sigchain.c >> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ >> -#include "sigchain.h" >> #include "cache.h" >> +#include "sigchain.h" >> >> #define X(f) \ >> static void f(int sig) { \ >> -- >> 1.9.0.138.g2de3478.dirty I am honored to get detailed guidance from you. Thank you very very much. He Sun ```