Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Docs: SubmittingPatches: Clarify convention for git commit references | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Thu, 21 May 2015 10:04:03 -0700 |
| |
On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 11:44 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 10:59 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >> Clarify the convention for commit references in changelogs so it matches > >> what checkpatch suggests; see d311cd44545f ("checkpatch: add test for > >> commit id formatting style in commit log"). > >> > >> I chose a different example to make the ("") around the description more > >> obvious. > > [] > >> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > > [] > >> @@ -168,27 +168,18 @@ resources. In addition to giving a URL to a mailing list archive or > > [] > >> +When referring to a specific commit, please include both the first 12 > > > > maybe > > > > When referring to a specific commit, please include both 12 or more > > or "at least 12" or " a minimum of 12". > > OK. There's value in brevity. I was trying to avoid the "if 12 is > good, 40 must be better" idea, because 40-char SHA-1s make changelogs > ugly and hard to read.
completely agree.
> My git-fu isn't awesome
Yeah, mine either.
> (git log --oneline --abbrev-commit --abbrev=10 > | cut -f1 -d" " | grep ...........), but I *think* we have three git > SHA-1s so far that aren't unique in 10 characters (8b82547e338/e > 3ee50141858/b a7aa92d1b49/a), and everything is still unique in 11 or > 12-char SHA1s.
Josh's seems to be strong though.
http://blog.cuviper.com/2013/11/10/how-short-can-git-abbreviate/
12 should be safe for a little while longer.
| |