Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 10/13/2015 08:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > >>On 2015-10-13 16:21:54 +0200, �lvaro Hern�ndez Tortosa wrote: > >>>(50 chars for the commit summary, 72 chars line wrapping) > > > >>-1 - imo 50 chars too often makes the commit summary too unspecific, > >>requiring to read much more. > > > >I agree --- I have a hard enough time writing a good summary in 75 > >characters. 50 would be awful. > > The idea of writing a commit message that is useful in a number of > characters that is less than half a tweet sounds unbearable. The idea of > trying to discern what the hell a commit actually is in a number of > characters that is less than half a tweet sounds completely ridiculous.
There are many commits that can be summarized in small lines; new features are often like that. Bug fix summaries are much harder to write and most of the time they require longer lines. When you can achieve 50-char lines it looks better in tooling (gitweb or git log --oneline), but if you have to make it 75 it's not the end of the world. http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=shortlog I don't care one bit if one or two lines that are part of the _body_ of the commit messages are longer than 80 chars, particularly if they provide useful links such as message-ids. The message-ids or message-id-based URLs are too handy to ignore. A month ago I asked sysadm...@pg.org about using http://postgr.es/m/<message-id> as a way to create shorter URLs to use in commit messages, but the idea wasn't too hotly received so I let it go. I'm glad it popped up again. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
