Subsystem/prefix in patch submission format

Subsystem/prefix in patch submission format

[Ilpo Järvinen]

Hi,

I have read through http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html, which uses 
$subsystem as prefix for summary. Could you please clarify what is 
appropriate "prefix" for the actual summary in a case where patch touches 
only a part of a subsystem, that is in my case, FRTO. Should the 
subsystem be TCP or can I use FRTO directly? Or should I perhaps use
them both (I found something similar from netdev archives and also from
some logs of the kernel):
   [TCP] FRTO: summary here

Just making sure, so that I can start to use the correct format of log 
messages in my git tree. Thank you.


-- 
 i.

Re: Subsystem/prefix in patch submission format

[David Miller]

From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 14:01:09 +0300 (EEST)

>    [TCP] FRTO: summary here

This looks perfectly fine.

Re: Subsystem/prefix in patch submission format

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 03:28:46PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Ilpo J?rvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>
> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 14:01:09 +0300 (EEST)
> 
> >    [TCP] FRTO: summary here
> 
> This looks perfectly fine.
Looking 100 commits back or so it is obvious we have two distinct
notations:
	subsystem: <what was changed>
and
	[subsystem] <what was changed>

net related stuff counts for most of the latter but it is used in
several other places.

>From a pure eye-candy perspective it would be nice to use same format
all over.
>From Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
------------------
12) The canonical patch format

The canonical patch subject line is:

    Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase
--------------

	Sam

Re: Subsystem/prefix in patch submission format

[David Miller]

From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:45:43 +0200

> >From a pure eye-candy perspective it would be nice to use same format
> all over.
> >From Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
> ------------------
> 12) The canonical patch format
> 
> The canonical patch subject line is:
> 
>     Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase
> --------------

The patch format specifies things that make no sense
when the changes gets into the tree.  Especially the
sequence numbers, which are implied by the changes
placement in the relative changeset history.

We are getting into the realm of personal taste, and I
fail to see any benefit from enforcing one subsystem to
adopt a different schema if what they're doing now provides
all the necessary information and works well for them.

Re: Subsystem/prefix in patch submission format

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 03:59:56PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:45:43 +0200
> 
> > >From a pure eye-candy perspective it would be nice to use same format
> > all over.
> > >From Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
> > ------------------
> > 12) The canonical patch format
> > 
> > The canonical patch subject line is:
> > 
> >     Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase
> > --------------
> 
> The patch format specifies things that make no sense
> when the changes gets into the tree.  Especially the
> sequence numbers, which are implied by the changes
> placement in the relative changeset history.

"git am" removes the patch format specifiers when the change are
committed. git applymbox replace the patch format specifier with
[PATCH].

So:
git am        => subsystem: summary phrase
git applymbox => [PATCH] subsystem: summary phrase

Both variants exists because Linus uses the latter to distingush between
what is applied via git tress and what is applied via mail patches.

The Signed-off-by: carries same info btw.

	Sam