Guido Günther writes: > Using past tense was indeed a bad choice. I deliberately avoided the > terme "merge" here since we're not using the git merge machinery but > build the tree ourself (see --merge-mode in gbp-import-orig(1)).
I used "merge" in my proposal, because technically the resulting commit is a merge commit, as it contains two parents, and the way it was produced could still be deducted from the second part of the commit message. However I won't insist on that, i.e. using "update" instead of "merge" is OK, as long as the commit message does not start with a sentence artificially split in the middle with an empty line. > What about:> > Update upstream source from tag 'upstream/20170702' > > Update to upstream version 20170702 > with Debian dir 43f841d7950f0587745d57c8c87fd79e1aed60dd. > It looks great to me! Thanks, robert
