From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:42:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Why do we need [PATCH]?
Message-ID: <20051216214231.GA2903@mars.ravnborg.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vpsnwenqy.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 01:27:33PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> writes:
> 
> > I looked at the source and found the -k option, but adding [PATCH]
> > should not be default behaviour so this is not the correct solution.
> 
> The "correct" solution depends on where you come from.  That
> extra [PATCH] is a carryover from BK days, I was told by Linus,
> to make e-mailed things stand out --- I've never used BK but I
> am guessing that things were not as obvious as our commit
> messages, perhaps?
You can a typical bk commit here:
http://linus.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/cset@1.2243?nav=index.html|ChangeSet@-9M

And here it made much more sense sine the author/comitter info are
less structured. Also we do nto have the Signed-off-by: stuff back then.

> We have "Author/Committer" distinction so
> the [PATCH] marker is redundant.
> 
> The rewrite, "git-am" does not bother with adding [PATCH], but
> the original "git-applymbox", being everyday Linus' tool, was
> left as it was, not to disrupt the workflow of Linus.

Thanks, I had forgotten the git-am rewrite.
I will use that in the future - if I remember.

	Sam