On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 16:26, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> Let's do both: "This fixes the bug introduced by the foobar patch from Sep
>>> 12th (git commitid a2c23897bc).
>>>
>>> I like to see the date of the referred patch in the commit message, to get
>>> an immediate idea of whether it was a 5-year old change or something from
>>> the previous day. But the commitid is also nice so you can immediately
>>> copy-paste that without reading through the old commit logs.
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> Having the git id is very useful, and putting the date in makes it no
>> *less* informational than what we had before, if/when we move away
>> from git and it's hashes.
>
> That works for me. But should we make a practice of writing the
> ENTIRE SHA-ID rather than an abbreviated form, so that we could more
> easily replace 'em later if need be? I think that would be a good
> idea for other reasons anyway - it's always possible - though
> admittedly unlikely - that a later commit could introduce a conflict
> with the first 10 characters, but a conflict with the whole string is
> pretty much discountable.
I think that's a good idea. And I suppose this is just going to be
cut&paste in (almost?) every case anyway, so it doesn't really change
the effort involved..
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/