From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 5CFE723D7DA for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2025 23:23:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762385008; cv=none; b=WcHXKxapwearMt0DFutE8BDWocV71AZR3uBcr3X63QZQcdS+Liwzm1QxCQsQPUdMo3y5iircyoz95p5pHLEeavU3sGtmWsiLcZ/znKD8prHXRWjvZxrtpAuEya7efPurWLgKbYiWO/rd2zGbtjTwUQmSfcBJ0k8z5g92nLNK2TE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762385008; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Y9YhJpJHAMelcdDKoaIHxQ5nA0fFMiBCcwvl2Pk4LfI=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=skuHB1aq4WjaYwLd1OpPycmJWXrfdVILbmyOoPolPM1xg3uqdcKEbkU50ARLD3oBifZKp2Pt2pwwUbyL6j/m8lvDblBMg+wBoH8h+b9sR5z/JUIfFRvgK3lBy91amnp4GWvPmGxW7ITWNafac+mdBPnE/qn0/WeUvXr/u0UIMyU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=esB/+two; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="esB/+two" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) id 03373C4CEFB; Wed, 5 Nov 2025 23:23:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D10EC116D0 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2025 23:23:26 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 smtp.kernel.org 6D10EC116D0 Authentication-Results: smtp.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1762385007; x=1793921007; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=Y9YhJpJHAMelcdDKoaIHxQ5nA0fFMiBCcwvl2Pk4LfI=; b=esB/+twomWOByOGgEDrtTeeHedD+XAasA9Y3ADYRY4wPFeIp5jDPmmW/ d4wfbdd6KizejnQ1DuFqkCfZ41hJjKLzVd/o1XpUqeZzEdz+9d2W5yX76 Km5uxG+pgOXZlzDORYs3Yabafrt9EhsQNiAukEPLqS2U2eG/QG5lwB7Tk xlshuQyK+PI75Ma2x5dab/AWd5fRxaSxJPsCRuRGHm6LUazORS6XD/Lqr EW3npzbgbxRq3seyY8bETvOXXZrrak6dGfVK7ekh+wLbpARERccl22rux MP9tKCs2XwJzJdQD89Qi3NcrnIQoU//R7T3T+ANSBETFOr6iBhhcHq7ws w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: Yshf48f4QKqmYJmYvJXfHA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: wsuDhFyoSeWHrvIsF5JyqA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11604"; a="87141868" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.19,283,1754982000"; d="scan'208";a="87141868" Received: from fmviesa001.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.141]) by orvoesa101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Nov 2025 15:23:26 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: A5iABfxqT+aOKo9cUSQYhg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: iJnGKUsmQtiksOt4T5zmcw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.19,283,1754982000"; d="scan'208";a="218360637" Received: from c02x38vbjhd2mac.jf.intel.com ([10.88.27.157]) by smtpauth.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Nov 2025 15:23:25 -0800 From: Marc Herbert To: tools@kernel.org Subject: Single patch and cover letter: inconsistent Subject line behavior Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2025 15:23:20 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: tools@linux.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain The current documentation and cover-letter template state this: > When you only have a single patch, b4 should "mix-in" the contents of > the cover letter into the "under-the-cut" portion of the patch itself, > where it serves as a source of additional information for the reviewers, > but never makes it into the actual commit. I noticed that the "under-the-cut" portion omits the _subject line_ of the cover letter. That does not seem documented. So I wrote a documentation patch and I was about to send it. But after testing a bit more I noticed that the first and second lines of the cover letter _are_ included in the "under-the-cut" portion when the second line of the cover letter file is not empty. Is that the intended behavior? Or maybe more "accidental" and caused by whatever library parses the cover letter file? Either way there is at least some documentation gap. Correct subject line followed by empty line: OMITTED < empty line > Body or not, included if any Body or not, included if any "Malformed subject" 1st line NOT followed by empty line: INCLUDED NOT empty 2nd line, INCLUDED Body or not, included if any Body or not, included if any