From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590232070F for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 17:49:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752829AbcISRtW (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:49:22 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:56811 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752802AbcISRtV (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:49:21 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C3B43F167; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:49:20 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=v3T83lqXbR2cGoGlvVJTU1cIboM=; b=PThgev ZA/dbPLuW6M6+D3D1Row1apLbJfQZuktR0N7mJjPfRtHSrzOFgv/RudQAZOIbgaS oEGirn0YUrOIwpLw5scevxDjNw9jUGgZm7aLWKnvSC5ZpPQ2w4xuTkRbEx6CL+z3 7WyNM4YHYgd4TW299ezf/KAI4D0E/2xCVGqI4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=e6DeyNzDOu2m+wCjBwmPGR4kpnLJudRj E6dQXYM8yT+PcZl3BB+c54Vy/LZgEcBxMxHv4daANPgvjiWNWBR3AoJGdrdhSDeQ cBeF0QAiYCQHZ/3E5hFKkjMmy/pA+XBH5IgPAXFyR5jEF49GtNGi1zYvVLaa59iC CjbolW64UVU= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B193F166; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:49:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E7B03F165; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:49:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Andrew Donnellan Cc: Josh Triplett , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] format-patch: Add --rfc for the common case of [RFC PATCH] References: <3df15bbb-7eac-86ec-2ccb-74a973482e8c@au1.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:49:17 -0700 In-Reply-To: <3df15bbb-7eac-86ec-2ccb-74a973482e8c@au1.ibm.com> (Andrew Donnellan's message of "Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:17:28 +1000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6421083E-7E91-11E6-A8B5-096F12518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Andrew Donnellan writes: > Sounds good to me. Agreed that "RFC" is essentially the only prefix > other than "PATCH" that I see, at least in the kernel. Around here I think we saw WIP too, and that makes me lean towards Peff's earlier suggestion to allow an end-user supplied string in front of PATCH, i.e. "-P RFC" => "--subject-prefix='RFC PATCH'", even though I understand that those who _ONLY_ care about RFC would prefer --rfc (5 keystrokes) over "-P RFC" (6 keystrokes). >> +--rfc:: >> + Alias for `--subject-prefix="RFC PATCH"`. Use this when >> + sending an experimental patch for discussion rather than >> + application. > > Perhaps mention the phrase "Request For Comment" for the benefit of > those who aren't familiar ... Good point.