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=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, 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 BC3E22070F for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 20:44:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752830AbcISUoM (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2016 16:44:12 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:55053 "EHLO relay3-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752803AbcISUoM (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2016 16:44:12 -0400 Received: from cloud (joshtriplett.org [IPv6:2604:3400:dc1:41:216:3eff:fe9f:2070]) (Authenticated sender: josh@joshtriplett.org) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 894AAA80C7; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 22:44:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:44:08 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Andrew Donnellan , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] format-patch: Add --rfc for the common case of [RFC PATCH] Message-ID: <20160919204408.GA28962@cloud> References: <3df15bbb-7eac-86ec-2ccb-74a973482e8c@au1.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:49:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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). I do share the concern raised elsewhere in the thread that adding new format-patch short options potentially conflicts with diff/rev-list short options. If you're not worried about that, I'd be happy to add (and document and test) -P. However, I'd still advocate adding --rfc as well; it's a common case, and "-P RFC" is actually rather more keystrokes when you count shifting. :) There might also be some value in steering people towards "RFC" (since a WIP is in a way an RFC). > >> +--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. I'll add that to the documentation in v3.