From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a7-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61C2A13AC1 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2025 22:06:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.150 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741126008; cv=none; b=pSAk3bpCpiGx+wTEqHZJB8ppeoZC35qcZvJft19ejhAba9ZNN2pYzIB/fekknd9/ZxgndMri3sZam76PSkg5AuMcJZVdqCogKBDPtdRuZXoqiclYqKnYeVhfh/O+47lQcTTD/JqSWrialtvF7MGQZbEND05nloCJ6q+vloNq1kQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741126008; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JsJ7y3ex9KExc4k8Wz7awKY4wxQmefAwczx1vTW4iQI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=hRejs6xrn1aKEV8XqLNeaENcDXx74MbyVcRtGiUSBevVhskliAN37FEg4lEFqiyp+ufN0hYf2esJJ5xDYEmL+aFyQ7lVGQ20E/CqplKfE2iJxOFLzvLp4UNpAuTwwU1I1jiZtHN2TkXzJxQ/g8CmFH9/0f/kiSi92NM6D5ozu7o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=F32P6n6S; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=WdVnU1Jg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.150 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="F32P6n6S"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="WdVnU1Jg" Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.phl.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7401013826E4; Tue, 4 Mar 2025 17:06:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 04 Mar 2025 17:06:45 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1741126005; x=1741212405; bh=UrzJrpoLa1 45NK9N4j7M/NyiGiyIvYyZWv5GKJHkvj0=; b=F32P6n6SFE+nFXq0pnGezUeX/3 eCIPnWCZWfFB7+PMetd4shx2gvet8RczfnzU6JtDc2+N/00waXlsE+ZAyvkjPFYN BIaPk1QgfHm2eG93RwLVW1oojtVQWQ0qsnBddQhhF7YlxTOUXgrK0YIhVMiI4w02 RlOT9cNDeSP+fFg3GlGybT6YML3t3IT7ytfCEl8aTqgOmtQQaPlkHh3JfDYPDFhl ghaAqyEpAj8gbPnvtjujQBeuzMFNPh0l3cDw7b2UMXKF9tlSDQ5x8lwCNV3P7ZDh r4euyPkXTdC/49GwIkNqoiVRJXZ13wzxVhw3Linbx1aLvMI+fM7yZTA7HQEw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1741126005; x=1741212405; bh=UrzJrpoLa145NK9N4j7M/NyiGiyIvYyZWv5 GKJHkvj0=; b=WdVnU1Jgsw8gseW/sxtXyjPV61KKTeAt5wuq9xhdafcTth7LBPP cT+ondf52VcczGmky0TVfW5PoLDrAo5oM8fW+ffnUujNQtByw/Qn/YX3sO/xvPiA vWi0cGr7+E4lfHMa4wzD3S6p07TeIYHcied2RqTBJFBL6bQwuc4lZwSBD7YHSD96 oXEfYNDqwZSsYUD7YLZN1JoChu+vyQkrFs/bzXnE1MIutTWfFxysOZepM+erS+n9 SabFSdEcQcUOKm0wW6dcZqj3UuAHzRV28i/xIEvELvuriYyrLk8p3eicypU3NGn/ bAW/mKPAcUkHKgf5f+Qh3recDdOd4tB/4VQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgddutdefudefucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggv pdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpih gvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttder tdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosg hogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeu feejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeeigeeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrg hrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghr tghpthhtohepgedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrd himhdprhgtphhtthhopehluhgtrghsshgvihhkihhoshhhihhrohesghhmrghilhdrtgho mhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtoh epghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 4 Mar 2025 17:06:44 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Lucas Seiki Oshiro , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GSoC][RFC PATCH 0/6] Add --subject-extra-prefix flag to format-patch In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Tue, 4 Mar 2025 08:32:55 +0100") References: <20250303220029.10716-1-lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 14:06:43 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Patrick Steinhardt writes: > I do understand though that `--rfc=GSoC` is not exactly discoverable for > a newcomer. Maybe a simpler fix would be to introduce an alias for that > option that is more discoverable? I don't have a great idea for how to > name it -- the best that comes to mind is `--patch-prefix`, which > mirrors `--subject-prefix`. The problem with it is that having "patch" vs "subject" prefix will make it confusing which one is which. Let's step back and examine what we already have. * The "--subject-prefix" is configurable and format.subjectPrefix is meant to go to .git/config for repositories that work with projects with special needs (they tell you to use not [PATCH] but subproject specific moniker like [PATCH rcu] instead). * The "--rfc[=]" has no configuration and it is deliberately so, as it is meant to be used as needed, on occasions that call for it, pretty much decided per invocation. Are these two points above not clear in our documentation? If so, we should fix it, but I do not think giving a synonym to --rfc is a good way to clarify it. If it is a GSoC topic sent to this list, it _will_ be GSoC topic for the entire iterations of the same topic. So it would be good to use --subject-prefix="GSoC PATCH" (or configure format.subjectPrefix in the repository to use that, if a student works with us only on GSoC topics during the Summer-of-Code program duration), and on occasion, when students are not so sure about their patches (yet), use of --rfc would be a good way, which would give us "[RFC GSoC PATCH 0/6]", to mark the patches as such. Another problem with --patch-prefix synonym is that --rfc is not necessarily a prefix. With git format-patch --rfc='-WIP' --subject-prefix='GSoC PATCH' you would get "[GSoC PATCH WIP 0/6]" instead. In any case, I think it is the root cause of this disease to treat GSoC mark as something extra that requires a new marker that is separate from the usual PATCH marker. Using whatever mechanism you would use your string in place for the standard PATCH mark to make it say "GSoC PATCH" would be the most appropriate, without mucking with an extra option, be it '--rfc' or '--subject-extra-prefix', I would say. Thanks.