From: Dragan Simic Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 17:34:09 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] format-patch: new --resend option for adding "RESEND" to patch subjects Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Hello Junio, On 2024-04-17 17:27, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. With all due respect, "--rfc=WIP" looks like a kludge, simply because "--rfc" should, IIUC, be some kind of a fixed shorthand. Perhaps a new option should be added for that purpose, but I'm not really sure how it could be called. > cf. https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqbkepep9k.fsf@gitster.g/ > > Thanks.