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 2CE9D17166F for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 17:34:11 +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=1713375253; cv=none; b=s+odlqsTlni8jK3npY/es2EfNgqIGrI+O21Dpd7v5Sb1oWNo7cIjUj+SU9sw/ZGf+RgcKpsrT1OX6JtT1YT3vdHXWIJlsNM2H7kNt1rC4RAnYpf6cIaBViy6UtMH3lbuiXASvpshOARK3K9/ZxzUxyWId7IxLUsvpkTCKxh+9fk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713375253; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WAJjCZJnqjClM/h5mgqWDfKKfTKUNd1aahndXPgLv+4=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=nBLcFZCEt+flAmv9lpe7ZjJgJrnCqQ4uYoJloJYUx1U+ebMVuFvBZ2C5hhsPLG3zCKghZ47PPXWrHWOmuKry+m4x2z9mfeO9RhThtDk1UVlVmDqPfTHOjUNnBdCxYnlxqIaclSdFSyFR74933QSNFb7y9nxYfE33HsXJfi0bn1Q= 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=ss7eb70E; 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="ss7eb70E" 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=1713375249; 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=RfPYu5V/KSZ1PwmJ/MmRS662uy6UKfQYh2xnvDKxVhQ=; b=ss7eb70E7L35xGUlS1F6UaA1i4J20UPL56qU7qgAjlZD6b/AaXGR66ABY5dJzs+jyLbO7r pj0jdK+NAVBRCZ4Kt3FYlFTmoH+nb0bXAw8k7LhTtPd95y1PrM2J8lvt1Sk2vz1J92BwAX JbTAVJfrD9/4FA+gPn0GI7Hp4rHApqb5bbl9V1ZuBPLEtsVzLC0xrHaPPxR+w7rJKyZN6Q tGOOMo20iVAmZeY1O5jmTz8bMgZGxS7ivT4q+FApnPJa5lNvCsl04vVz72iAEJmlhukpgZ JMeLDbouLz04ZjHWwyLf9efJKig7i+DAauCVyZkhtd0eTRZH/c2S+2mWGVjeiA== Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 19:34:09 +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> 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 2024-04-17 17:27, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Phillip Wood writes: > >> Playing devil's advocate for a minute, is this really common enough to >> justify a new option when the user can use "--subject-prefix='PATCH >> RESEND'" instead? > > The same applies to "--rfc", but the justification goes like this. > > * When you are working on a single subsystem in a larger project, > your patches would want to carry the subsystem name. You'd use > "--subject-prefix='PATCH frotz'" (and more likely it comes from > format.subjectPrefix in a working repository dedicated to work on > the frotz subsystem) for that. > > * In the context of working on that subsystem, sometimes you would > need to mark your patch as a RFC patch, i.e., "[RFC PATCH frotz]", > and that is done per-invocation basis (i.e., you are not always > constantly sending an RFC) with "--rfc". > > Having orthogonal two mechanisms whose results are concatenated > together is handy than having to specify the whole thing. > > I somehow thought that during the review of the "--rfc" option a few > ideas were brought up to deal with adornments other than but similar > to RFC. I still think the approach to make "--rfc" take an optional > value, e.g., "--rfc=WIP" from the repository working in "frotz" > subsystem would produce "[WIP PATCH frotz v2 2/4]" a reasonable one. With all due respect, "--rfc=WIP" looks like a kludge, simply because "--rfc" should, IIUC, be some kind of a fixed shorthand. Perhaps a new option should be added for that purpose, but I'm not really sure how it could be called. > cf. https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqbkepep9k.fsf@gitster.g/ > > Thanks.