[PATCH] hacking: document format for git commit messages (was: Re: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed)

2012-02-25 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 02/25/2012 08:38 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > But I should definitely improve HACKING and have it document the > standards and best practice for commit logs (since the GCS are sadly > weak and out-of-date in this regard). > And here is my attempt. WDYT? I will push in a couple of days if

[PATCH] hacking: document format for git commit messages (was: Re: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed)

2012-02-25 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 02/25/2012 08:38 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > But I should definitely improve HACKING and have it document the > standards and best practice for commit logs (since the GCS are sadly > weak and out-of-date in this regard). > And here is my attempt. WDYT? I will push in a couple of days if

Re: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed

2012-02-25 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 02/25/2012 03:14 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> One ludicrously minor nit: we should put references to bug reports, >> names of people to thanks, or old commits that introduced a regression >> *before* the list of touched files, and always separated by a leading >> and a t

Re: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed

2012-02-25 Thread Jim Meyering
Stefano Lattarini wrote: > One ludicrously minor nit: we should put references to bug reports, > names of people to thanks, or old commits that introduced a regression > *before* the list of touched files, and always separated by a leading > and a trailing blank line; like this: Adjusted and pushe

Re: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed

2012-02-25 Thread Stefano Lattarini
r I use the Debian packaged one So I'll just live with less automatic highlighting :-) > From 9888205813e24281527448d408b2e4e5075e2026 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jim Meyering > Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:37:25 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is n

Re: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed

2012-02-25 Thread Jim Meyering
/gitk-highlight-git-describe-SHA1.jpg ] >From 9888205813e24281527448d408b2e4e5075e2026 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Meyering Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:37:25 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed * tests/defs-static.in (GNU_GCJ, GNU_GCJFLAGS): Defin

Re: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed

2012-02-25 Thread Stefano Lattarini
ring > Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:37:25 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed > > * tests/defs-static.in (GNU_GCJ, GNU_GCJFLAGS): Define. > * tests/Makefile.am (do_subust): Add those to the list of substituted symbols. > --- > tests/

[PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed

2012-02-25 Thread Jim Meyering
r? >From 39c13b5bc88dc2a3e28301e1d1a089bd13089c48 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Meyering Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:37:25 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed * tests/defs-static.in (GNU_GCJ, GNU_GCJFLAGS): Define. * tests/Makefile.am (do_subust): Add