Re: [PATCH v2] format-patch: Add --rfc for the common case of [RFC PATCH]

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:44:08PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:49:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > > Sounds good to me. Agreed that "RFC" is essentially the only prefix
> > > > other than "PATCH" that I see, at least in the kernel.
> > > 
> > > Around here I think we saw WIP too, and that makes me lean towards
> > > Peff's earlier suggestion to allow an end-user supplied string in
> > > front of PATCH, i.e. "-P RFC" => "--subject-prefix='RFC PATCH'",
> > > even though I understand that those who _ONLY_ care about RFC would
> > > prefer --rfc (5 keystrokes) over "-P RFC" (6 keystrokes).
> > 
> > I do share the concern raised elsewhere in the thread that adding new
> > format-patch short options potentially conflicts with diff/rev-list
> > short options.  If you're not worried about that, I'd be happy to add
> > (and document and test) -P.  However, I'd still advocate adding --rfc as
> > well; it's a common case, and "-P RFC" is actually rather more
> > keystrokes when you count shifting. :)
> > 
> > There might also be some value in steering people towards "RFC" (since a
> > WIP is in a way an RFC).
> 
> Good point. This may be an opportunity to be just slightly opinionated
> and nudge people towards a micro-standard.
> 
> I was curious what we have used over the years on the git list. So here
> are the top hits for:
> 
>   # start with a maildir archive
>   find git/cur -type f |
> 
>   # grab first subject line from each mail
>   xargs grep -i -m1 -h ^subject: |
> 
>   # pull out only bracketed text, ignore "re: [PATCH]"
>   perl -lne '/subject:\s*(\[.*?\])/i and print $1' |
> 
>   # normalize numbers; note that a long patch series will be
>   # over-represented, since it gets one hit per message
>   perl -pe 's/[0-9]+/X/g' |
> 
>   # and then sort by count
>   sort | uniq -c | sort -rn
> 
> The top 5 hits are:
> 
>   26252 [PATCH X/X]
>   18255 [PATCH]
>   17262 [PATCH vX X/X]
>    2330 [PATCH vX]
>    2297 [PATCHvX X/X]
> 
> which is not surprising (our "-v" uses "PATCH vX", which is why that's
> so much more common). After that it starts to get interesting, but let's
> do two further transformations before the sort to coalesce similar
> cases:
> 
>   # drop versioning entirely
>   perl -pe 's/\s*vX//' |
> 
>   # drop multipart subjects
>   perl -pe 's{\s*X/X}{}' |
> 
> That gives us:
> 
>   67081 [PATCH]
>    1286 [PATCH/RFC]
>    1169 [RFC/PATCH]
>     863 [JGIT PATCH]
>     832 [ANNOUNCE]
>     797 [RFC]
>     675 [RFC PATCH]
>     537 [StGit PATCH]
>     524 [EGIT PATCH]
>     367 [BUG]
>     169 [StGIT PATCH]
>     158 [GUILT]
>     142 [PATCH RFC]
>     131 [WIP PATCH]
>     129 [PATCH/WIP]
>     115 [TopGit PATCH]
>     115 [PATCH VX]
>     ...
> 
> Some of those are obviously uninteresting (like "ANNOUNCE" or "BUG").
> But I see a few interesting patterns:
> 
>   - the "slash" form of RFC/PATCH or PATCH/RFC seems more common than a
>     straight prefix (2400 versus about 800)
> 
>   - both RFC/PATCH and PATCH/RFC seems similarly popular (but "RFC
>     PATCH" is much more popular than "PATCH RFC")
> 
>   - WIP is a lot less popular; it seems reasonable that it's a synonym
>     for RFC and I don't mind pushing people in that direction
> 
>   - there are a non-trivial number of patches for other projects (JGIT,
>     EGIT, StGit, etc). This is somewhat unique to git, where we discuss
>     a lot of related projects on the list. But I wonder if other
>     projects would use subsystems in a similar way (though I guess for
>     the kernel, there are separate subsystems lists, so the "to" or "cc"
>     header becomes the more interesting tag).

> As far as your patch goes, I'd be OK with defining:
> 
>   --rfc::
> 	Pretend as if `--subject-prefix='RFC PATCH'` was given.
> 
> for now. If we later add:
> 
>   -P <tag>::
> 	Pretend as if `--subject-prefix='<tag> PATCH'` was given.
> 
> then `--rfc` naturally becomes:
> 
>   --rfc::
> 	Pretend as if `-P RFC` was given.
> 
> in a backwards-compatible way. It doesn't have to all come at once, and
> it sounds like `-P` may not be as useful for the kernel (though I'd be
> interested if somebody wanted to do a similar count; I don't have a copy
> of the kernel archive handy).