Hi Richard, On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:48:03PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 18/11/2019 15:55, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >That immediately shows some of the shortcomings of this approach: the > >subject line is much too long, but more importantly, it doesn't make > >much sense: it is not what the patch does, it is the description of a > >bug that is related in some way to this patch. It is not uncommon for > >a commit to not fix the problem mentioned in the bug report (if it *is* > >a problem!), or not fix it completely. > > > >Then again, changing all such subject lines to read "patch" could also > >already be considered an improvement. > > Well the real question is whether such a summary is worse than the > current situation of just printing the author in the wrong field. I > personally don't think it is.
I think that non-obviously-wrong-but-still-wrong info is not something we should introduce. And, I think this will happen a *lot*. Maybe you can just put in artificial subjects like "Patch related to PR12345" or the like? That is correct, displays a lot better, and is at least as useful (imo). > There are about 560 commits where the code highlights that the data > might be suspect (usually a category mismatch). What about commits that mention multiple PRs? What do you do for those? (Are there as many of those as I think, anyway?) With normally very short subjects you could put all of them in there :-) Segher
