Hello, On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 01:00:03PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:10:19PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:43:42AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:39:22PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > > * options.h (OPT_MOUNT): Add the definition. > > > > (OPT_LONG_MOUNT): Likewise. > > > > Update copyright information. > > > > > > > > * options.c (argp_common_options): Add option ``--mount'' > > > > > > There is no need to put blank lines between changed files that are > > > related to each other in the current changeset. > > > > I'm sorry, but could you please give an example where there *is* a > > need for a blank line? (I just feel a bit dizzy about that changeset > > terminology :-( ) > > Sure, here we go -- and note that this is just my interpretation of the > GCS, of how I think it should be done, and what I observe how it is done > in other projects: > > (a) A blank line is to be added it two independent changes are committed > together -- which shouldn't be done in most cases in the first place, of > course. > > * file1 (foo): Handle option bar here. > * file2 (bar): Use file1's foo instead instead of own implementation. > > * file1 (foo): Rewrite function. > > Instead, first the ``rewrite foo'' change should be committed, and then > the ``handle option bar'' one. Remember that ChangeLogs are kept in > reverse chronological ordering with respect to individual blocks > (``rewrite foo'' (first change) is below ``handle option bar'' (second > change)), but inside a block typically chronological ordering is used > (``handle option bar'' before ``use foo'').
Aha, clear. I was aware of the fact that reverse chronological ordering is used in ChangeLogs, but I didn't know about the ordering inside blocks. > (b) As a corollary to (a), a blank line is also needed when real > ChangeLog *files* are being used, and a change is registered in there by > the same author on the same day and no duplicate header line is being > added. > > Example: > > ChangeLog file before the second commit: > > DATE AUTHOR EMAIL > > * file1 (foo): Rewrite function. > > ChangeLog file after the second commit: > > DATE AUTHOR EMAIL > > * file1 (foo): Handle option bar here. > * file2 (bar): Use file1's foo instead instead of own implementation. > > * file1 (foo): Rewrite function. I see. Now it's clear. > To sum up: both these cases are not really relevant to us anymore, as (a) > should be committed as two independent commits and (b) is no issue > anymore as we don't have a real ChangeLog file anymore. Great :-) So, I will forget about blank lines in commit messages in 99% of the cases. > Further questions? No, thank you :-) I feel quite confident in my knowledge now. Regards, scolobb
