From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (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 7B16317D2 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:34:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713479673; cv=none; b=q6huBqZ5Qmutlam7MibvpN94QJLrVMRaWEoK0RxqeT3H+Z2BdUh1Op4JjBvfnAoWJUGvnEtL41+653lJdlDDvMEQEBISICIOargY2fnS35wS4tYNOmuOF16WUDOE+Lzk0EtzUlH5BjeR38RNDl6NMAvBAebLu4oPSdg5HqlrWF4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713479673; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FrCujJRUEYLJgygpWZrj6blMFNgGWvtXkNRrJE1P/cw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Sx/DdKSz6QKP9mA2CLUPRdou1kegAX4AlkIwWcuAFcZxS1C4r9fGnTTz650m4e7nuy+p046Mo11xwATDxyFw6vVs93OOBMP+F8dYFqEEVsHTvGMIZn9+E/lHMIj/g0cFwJ1FN6ED6E7aLE7pCJsXJPjA1/zCcws/XP8s9rolzxc= 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=yZpV42g/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="yZpV42g/" Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDFF82C33B; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:34:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=FrCujJRUEYLJgygpWZrj6blMFNgGWvtXkNRrJE 1P/cw=; b=yZpV42g/cUAXZEmN6dvHWYN00mg9ksAZ4p7sO4MXV08OqefTkv21lE eO1787vBxgZRxAQxZhRGjdUCmOWG13+fDYTQk+tPf6a3U+GwKjCTVKcXGMFoQA+G znJ4E8Ionws9A2jnZTXGXhumDuzUgtvxbI3mhPtBacFPI3wtYbams= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D66EB2C33A; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:34:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.229.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39D862C339; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:34:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Dragan Simic 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: <84dcb80be916f85cbb6a4b99aea0d76b@manjaro.org> (Dragan Simic's message of "Thu, 18 Apr 2024 05:12:55 +0200") References: <1d9c6ce3df714211889453c245485d46b43edff6.1713324598.git.dsimic@manjaro.org> <154b085c-3e92-4eb6-b6a6-97aa02f8f07d@gmail.com> <19d5f3d4c99fc1da24c80ac2a9ee8bf8@manjaro.org> <84dcb80be916f85cbb6a4b99aea0d76b@manjaro.org> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:34:25 -0700 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 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D078124C-FDD3-11EE-ACB0-F515D2CDFF5E-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com 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:". 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.