From: Dragan Simic Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:52:39 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] format-patch: "--rfc=-(WIP)" appends to produce [PATCH (WIP)] Message-ID: <115acd1529d9529ef5bb095c074ad83d@manjaro.org> In-Reply-To: Hello Phillip, On 2024-04-24 12:17, Phillip Wood wrote: > On 21/04/2024 20:37, Dragan Simic wrote: >> On 2024-04-21 20:59, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> In the previous step, the "--rfc" option of "format-patch" learned >>> to take an optional string value to prepend to the subject prefix, >>> so that --rfc=WIP can give "[WIP PATCH]".  This commit shows that >>> the mechanism can be extended easily to allow "--rfc=-(WIP)" [*1*] >>> to signal that the extra string is to be appended instead of getting >>> prepended, resulting in "[PATCH (WIP)]". >>> >>> Having worked on the patch, I am personally not 100% on board with >>> this part of the feature myself, and that is why this update is a >>> separate step from the main "--rfc takes an optional string value" >>> step. >>> >>> If a way to prepend an arbitrary adornment is added to the system, >>> and people can now say "--rfc=RESEND" to produce "[RESEND PATCH]", >>> those who used to use "[PATCH RESEND]" by tweaking the subject >>> prefix in other ways [*2*] would do one of three things: >> >> There are even more issues, such as the grammar-related ones. > > I think it is best to view the subject prefix as a list of space > separated labels or keywords rather than part of a grammatically > correct sentence. With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Viewing it that way and letting "[RESEND PATCH]" be accepted as correct (and even enforced a bit) is exactly what I below referred to as embracing the bending of English grammar beyond what's actually necessary. Please, let me remind you that I spent more than a couple of years on English Wikipedia, writing new and expanding already existing computing-related articles, during which time I participated in more than a few grammar-related discussions. All that makes me more "sensitive" to breaking the English grammar rules when that actually isn't necessary or beneficial. > Let >> me explain, please, as accurately as I can do that as a non-native >> English speaker who spent many years studying English grammar. >> >> Writing "RFC PATCH" puts "RFC" into the role of an adjective, which >> is fine.  The same obviously applies to "WIP PATCH".  On the other >> hand, writing "RESEND PATCH" puts "RESEND" into its only possible >> role, which is transitive verb, and results in "RESEND PATCH" that >> serves as a very simple sentence in imperative mood.  I'm not sure >> that, strictly technically speaking, having simple sentences as the >> prefixes is the desired outcome. >> >> Technically, we should use "RE-SENT PATCH" to be on the correct side >> from the grammar perspective, with "RE-SENT" serving as an adjective. >> Before you ask, no, we can't use "RESENT" there, because its meaning >> is completely different.  However, nobody uses "RE-SENT PATCH", or >> at least I haven't seen it used yet. >> >> When it comes to "PATCH RESEND", "RESEND" remains in its transitive >> verb role, but "PATCH", as a noun, becomes a modifier of the verb. >> Thus, the resulting meaning of "PATCH RESEND" becomes something like >> "resend an item that's a patch", but not written in form of a simple >> (or less simple) sentence.  Strictly technically, a noun should only >> modify another noun, but bending English grammar a bit this way is >> much better than actually having a simple sentence as a prefix. >> >> With all this in mind, I think that allowing the "--rfc=-" >> form is the way to go.  Computer lingo often bends English grammar >> to a certain degree, to achieve compactness, but bending and dumbing >> it down more that it's actually necessary isn't something that we >> should embrace. >> >> I hope all this makes sense. >> >>>  (1) keep using their existing ways and keep sending their message >>>      with the "[RESEND PATCH]" prefix. >>> >>>  (2) rejoice in the new automation, switch to use "--rfc=RESEND", >>>      and start sending their messages with "[RESEND PATCH]" prefix >>>      instead of "[PATCH RESEND]" prefix. >>> >>>  (3) complain and demand a way to append instead of prepend so that >>>      they can use an automation to produce "[PATCH RESEND]" prefix. >>> >>> I do not believe in adding slightly different ways that allow users >>> to be "original" when such differences do not make the world better >>> in meaningful ways [*3*], and I expect there are many more folks who >>> share that sentiment and go to route (2) than those who go to route >>> (3).  If my expectation is true, it means that this patch goes in a >>> wrong direction, and I would be happy to drop it. >>> >>> >>> [Footnote] >>> >>>  *1* The syntax takes inspiration from Perl's three-arg open syntax >>>      that uses pipes "open fh, '|-', 'cmd'", where the dash signals >>>      "the other stuff comes here". >>> >>>  *2* ... because "--rfc" in released versions does not even take any >>>      string value to prepend, let alone append, to begin with. >>> >>>  *3* >>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/b4d2b3faaf2914b7083327d5a4be3905@manjaro.org/ >>>      gathered some stats to observe that "[RFC PATCH]" is more >>>      common than "[PATCH RFC]" by a wide margin, while trying to see >>>      how common "[RESEND PATCH]" (or "[PATCH RESED]") were used (the >>>      answer: much less common).  But it wouldn't have needed to >>>      count "[PATCH RFC]" and "[RFC PATCH]" separately if using a >>>      prefix and not a suffix (or vice versa) were established more >>>      firmly as the standard practice. >>> >>>      It is a fine example that useless diversity making needless >>>      work.