Re: Why do we need [PATCH]?

[Brian Gerst <bgerst@didntduck.org>]

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