Why do we need [PATCH]?

Why do we need [PATCH]?

[Sam Ravnborg]

Hi git's.

I've just applied a patch to my git tree using git-applymbox.
It worked like a charm as it often do.
But then when I did a quick check with gitk it stuck me that
the subject was prefixed with [PATCH].
I am aware that the [PATCH] in subject tell me:
"patch is received from somewhere and applied by me to the .git tree".
This is in comparsion to patches received when I merge a git tree for
example.

But with common practice to use sign-off I wonder the value of this
patch marker.
When browsing the kernel shortlog I often focus on first word in subject
- cause this tells me what system/drivers is changed. But with the
  [PATCH] marker I have to read some non-sense to see actual subject.

The information is redundant since metadata already tell me who is the
author and who committed the change.
So could we have it removed or if people continue to find it usefull
then at least hide it behind some option. Using the [PATCH] prefix is
not the natural thing to do with git.

I looked at the source and found the -k option, but adding [PATCH]
should not be default behaviour so this is not the correct solution.

	Sam

Re: Why do we need [PATCH]?

[Dave Jones]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 10:01:45PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:

 > I've just applied a patch to my git tree using git-applymbox.
 > It worked like a charm as it often do.
 > But then when I did a quick check with gitk it stuck me that
 > the subject was prefixed with [PATCH].
 > I am aware that the [PATCH] in subject tell me:
 > "patch is received from somewhere and applied by me to the .git tree".
 > This is in comparsion to patches received when I merge a git tree for
 > example.
 > 
 > But with common practice to use sign-off I wonder the value of this
 > patch marker.
 > When browsing the kernel shortlog I often focus on first word in subject
 > - cause this tells me what system/drivers is changed. But with the
 >   [PATCH] marker I have to read some non-sense to see actual subject.
 > 
 > The information is redundant since metadata already tell me who is the
 > author and who committed the change.
 > So could we have it removed or if people continue to find it usefull
 > then at least hide it behind some option. Using the [PATCH] prefix is
 > not the natural thing to do with git.
 > 
 > I looked at the source and found the -k option, but adding [PATCH]
 > should not be default behaviour so this is not the correct solution.

I'm still using Linus' original 'applypatch' script, on which I think
this stuff was based, and this behaviour annoyed me too.
So I changed it to do this..

if [ -f .treename ]; then
  TREENAME=`cat .treename`
else
  TREENAME='PATCH'
fi
(echo "[$TREENAME] $SUBJECT" ; if [ -s $MSGFILE ]; then echo ; cat $MSGFILE; fi ) > $final


and then I have a .treename in say the AGP tree, containing just 'AGPGART',
and the changelogs get the prefixes that actually mean something useful.
(And those markers are invaluable when searching through history for changes)

		Dave

Re: Why do we need [PATCH]?

[Brian Gerst]

Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> Hi git's.
> 
> I've just applied a patch to my git tree using git-applymbox.
> It worked like a charm as it often do.
> But then when I did a quick check with gitk it stuck me that
> the subject was prefixed with [PATCH].
> I am aware that the [PATCH] in subject tell me:
> "patch is received from somewhere and applied by me to the .git tree".
> This is in comparsion to patches received when I merge a git tree for
> example.
> 
> But with common practice to use sign-off I wonder the value of this
> patch marker.
> When browsing the kernel shortlog I often focus on first word in subject
> - cause this tells me what system/drivers is changed. But with the
>   [PATCH] marker I have to read some non-sense to see actual subject.
> 
> The information is redundant since metadata already tell me who is the
> author and who committed the change.
> So could we have it removed or if people continue to find it usefull
> then at least hide it behind some option. Using the [PATCH] prefix is
> not the natural thing to do with git.
> 
> I looked at the source and found the -k option, but adding [PATCH]
> should not be default behaviour so this is not the correct solution.
> 
> 	Sam

[PATCH] makes sense for the actual email message so that the recipient 
knows that the message contains a patch.  But I agree that it does not 
add any value to the commit message in git.  It actually detracts value, 
because it takes up limited space in the shortlog message.

--
				Brian Gerst

Re: Why do we need [PATCH]?

[Junio C Hamano]

Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> writes:

> I looked at the source and found the -k option, but adding [PATCH]
> should not be default behaviour so this is not the correct solution.

The "correct" solution depends on where you come from.  That
extra [PATCH] is a carryover from BK days, I was told by Linus,
to make e-mailed things stand out --- I've never used BK but I
am guessing that things were not as obvious as our commit
messages, perhaps?  We have "Author/Committer" distinction so
the [PATCH] marker is redundant.

The rewrite, "git-am" does not bother with adding [PATCH], but
the original "git-applymbox", being everyday Linus' tool, was
left as it was, not to disrupt the workflow of Linus.

Re: Why do we need [PATCH]?

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 01:27:33PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> writes:
> 
> > I looked at the source and found the -k option, but adding [PATCH]
> > should not be default behaviour so this is not the correct solution.
> 
> The "correct" solution depends on where you come from.  That
> extra [PATCH] is a carryover from BK days, I was told by Linus,
> to make e-mailed things stand out --- I've never used BK but I
> am guessing that things were not as obvious as our commit
> messages, perhaps?
You can a typical bk commit here:
http://linus.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/cset@1.2243?nav=index.html|ChangeSet@-9M

And here it made much more sense sine the author/comitter info are
less structured. Also we do nto have the Signed-off-by: stuff back then.

> We have "Author/Committer" distinction so
> the [PATCH] marker is redundant.
> 
> The rewrite, "git-am" does not bother with adding [PATCH], but
> the original "git-applymbox", being everyday Linus' tool, was
> left as it was, not to disrupt the workflow of Linus.

Thanks, I had forgotten the git-am rewrite.
I will use that in the future - if I remember.

	Sam