Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] format-patch: "--rfc=-(WIP)" appends to produce [PATCH (WIP)]

> Hello Junio,
> 
> 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. 

> 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=-<string>"
> 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.