From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.manjaro.org (mail.manjaro.org [116.203.91.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6ADB7F for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 00:08:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713485302; cv=none; b=uo0TlwUjH2gM4ws8CpDan75Gv4oFOPqssbwR71j1SxwGxW4pGW1xfeQUTPOZuCerKHyJFRg/H2xLzrMvxy1dmTMhwO5npIwKN2ruxXB3i5Zcw2Po5d6WkFxkwRDhwzDIUOLvvzjLBafn3KEVzXtDAP2MpwtszXt625oOIVOV81M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713485302; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+lqVfsc9LUxdklKYgP3q4g9OWzBh/3bzCQMEMTI0T1o=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=S9C5fQ6Ui5W3mJzl7rZmkIPbWKYzn7ZMgFCi2vzc+Xusxm9Afyws9VLObchmgnbEY2hRjMEFEr2OvoJdQfpyiJA6NqCYRQ73k5D1XvvQa6Kv7SLgdEH/ez3qvzjqL7iCbgQDBLB7RtstMYoPpYOPpZvEuBEfAN0+YW1kbfN5K4U= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b=VcIJoaSw; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b="VcIJoaSw" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manjaro.org; s=2021; t=1713485296; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JyRqeCU6t67Bf8NrfJov46qlgEF+Ib4SChMD0VqXfF8=; b=VcIJoaSwloW/AuwmBjF1oi4/fUqvCoCZSfFp2CnADwFcliPmYGK5ucVA34VlrH5rT5zkSd keo1Ep2Glm9T2yi3kBKZEBl0NVS2cxuKf+F3dSMFmbrfK+bSeeaIASibGMkwqAp0QoNdtF mZA1jvTOMgSM34UUaDWWoPWZn/7hEp3Mc3EsJwaStoFLMiSRm4dl3x3VgXVVB9OfsCt+5b 2K3ouK08w8E5xsEMqkHIVFNDESiPOmFMztPuN1UmaA7dpIaxeoiujV/ac6ekA4Eego6Uny AL0WUBTXQdqxojZxZuVE2m9WOi9C7RtGmd3spIcJAmGlOT9e1XMI1D4PH/dYdw== Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 02:08:15 +0200 From: Dragan Simic To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Phillip Wood , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] format-patch: new --resend option for adding "RESEND" to patch subjects In-Reply-To: References: <1d9c6ce3df714211889453c245485d46b43edff6.1713324598.git.dsimic@manjaro.org> <154b085c-3e92-4eb6-b6a6-97aa02f8f07d@gmail.com> <19d5f3d4c99fc1da24c80ac2a9ee8bf8@manjaro.org> <84dcb80be916f85cbb6a4b99aea0d76b@manjaro.org> Message-ID: X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org Hello Junio, On 2024-04-19 00:34, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Dragan Simic writes: > >>>>> With all due respect, "--rfc=WIP" looks like a kludge, simply >>>>> because "--rfc" should, IIUC, be some kind of a fixed shorthand. >>>> I wouldn't use "should" there. > >> How about introducing "--label=" as the new option,... > > I still think --rfc=WIP is a lot more natural and easier to > understand, and it is just the matter of how you introduce it. > I'll show you how in a separate patch later. > > The problem I see with an overly generic word like "label" is that > it would mislead readers to say "--label=important" and expect it to > appear on an extra e-mail header, not as a part of "Subject:". "Label" is a little generic, I'll give you that. > But we can do this to get the ball rolling, without bikeshedding > what option name to use. Until we find a good name, users can > use --rfc=WIP and when we do find a good name, it can be added > as a synonym, possibly deprecating --rfc, and if we never agree > on a good name, that is fine as well. If you insist, let's do it that way! :)