From: Junio C Hamano Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:38:38 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Documentation/format-patch: summarize patch-sending workflow Message-ID: <7vzkntkc9d.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20110413221736.GA773@elie> Jonathan Nieder writes: > + ... > +'git am --scissors' accepts an alternative format with the patch > +inline in the message: > + > +------------ > +... > +> So we should do such-and-such. > + > +Makes sense to me. How about this patch? > + > +-- 8< -- > +From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > +Subject: Makefile: extract Q_() source strings as ngettext() > + > +The patch adding the Q_() wrapper function around ngettext[1] didn't > +.... > +------------ It still is preferred to remove the magic "From xxxx Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001" we placed to help somebody who is inclined to write an /etc/magic entry to detect files of format-patch output type if you use the scissors format. One thing that we probably would want to clarify is use of the "From:" and the "Subject:" fields after the scissors in such a context. "How about this patch?" is most likely to be written by the same person as the message is coming from, so I think you would rarely need a "From:" after the scissors. On the other hand, in such a message, you would come up with a potential solution to a problem raised in a discussion, and the original subject would likely to be about a description of the problem or a request for help, while the patch title would be about the solution, so it is very likely that you would want to have a "Subject:" line after the scissors. Scissors can run in either direction; I am right handed and tend to write them as "-- >8 --", but your example is for a left handed person. Either is fine. Other than that, looks good to me.