From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [GIT] Networking Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 21:35:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20130709.213555.1037822981842851807.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20130709.145325.1363244885668360965.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Linus Torvalds Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 19:50:41 -0700 > Now, I'm all for making descriptive merge commit messages, including > improving on the summary line. So by all means write those nice merge > messages with explanations. I think something like > > dc3d807d6fd9 Merge "openvswitch: gre tunneling support." > > would have been a *fine* summary line, for example, and quite possibly > better than the default kind of git merge summary lines (ie "Merge > branch 'openswitch'"). So I'm not against playing with merge messages > per se, it's literally this "cannot tell it's a merge any more in the > summary" that I thing is a problem. Ok, I'll use that format in the future. I was actually trying to add more information, not less. :-) But yeah that header line has to mention that it's a merge, for sure.