From: Phillip Wood Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 10:17:55 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] format-patch: "--rfc=-(WIP)" appends to produce [PATCH (WIP)] Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Hi Dragan On 21/04/2024 20:37, Dragan Simic wrote: > 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. I think it is best to view the subject prefix as a list of space separated labels or keywords rather than part of a grammatically correct sentence. Best Wishes Phillip Let > 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=-" > 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.