From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (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 D84C2140E29 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:27:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713367653; cv=none; b=nKnYS++ortaLU7VD49mpiNugF5jLm3Tv7h+veaCshaXSTPBbHbrDLhFOd99VO202wNDGgvFu84/EaPvESDS2tvelOQDaayxYdiHJgCeU0gmNMgv2nhhwk/lgcQ2seaTiK91bK9N5UtsMWxGgQf6Z1DRZzGe21sGnOlTCsozCkkc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713367653; c=relaxed/simple; bh=B5IZsmW1+ZmjzES6aQlVQzgopAOx3R4r5Ry6NJCy8u8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=IcjVp5DnwDc1dyD0YRT8PcPp/UMFhvecJT8doT/wv/PrjYSYfVxMi2y/EhtbPfFnG+HVef/HVIrSw7/ElHuxxKCv7ymMX60SRoME2MNcUCtTwbbWjMbBLcP6UcFFxvlEqIgNuGtRmLuBP0nktXxnOjw6hkVUMzfcU/VV+WUXiJY= 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=bcqUDc7x; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 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="bcqUDc7x" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B342192F2; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:27:31 -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=B5IZsmW1+ZmjzES6aQlVQzgopAOx3R4r5Ry6NJ Cy8u8=; b=bcqUDc7xJ1hirtDJZrJOUqXf8AXlXh+Juf4FVEV/HZyCsqYiVPZcTe 2uBkPgKYrENPnjqL8sWK8QilLrctAr5s4OdBjH+gx7veC4KvE/FBq7KoJZtqLd8+ wi6bb3ScBgn5GyShomdGGiJCj/cIva52z6X5p7gubsNGndBnboa6A= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5270B192F1; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:27:31 -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-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E70F1192F0; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:27:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Phillip Wood Cc: Dragan Simic , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] format-patch: new --resend option for adding "RESEND" to patch subjects In-Reply-To: <154b085c-3e92-4eb6-b6a6-97aa02f8f07d@gmail.com> (Phillip Wood's message of "Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:02:28 +0100") References: <1d9c6ce3df714211889453c245485d46b43edff6.1713324598.git.dsimic@manjaro.org> <154b085c-3e92-4eb6-b6a6-97aa02f8f07d@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 08:27:24 -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: FE93CB5E-FCCE-11EE-8149-A19503B9AAD1-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com 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. cf. https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqbkepep9k.fsf@gitster.g/ Thanks.