On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> This is a companion patch to the previous format-patch fix.
> With "-k", format-patch can be told not to remove the [PATCH] in
> the original commit, nor to add the [PATCH] on its own.
I think this might be the point in time to just make the "[PATCH]" prefix
It made much more sense with BK than it does with git: since git keeps
track of "author" and "committer" separately, you can always see when the
committer wasn't the author of the change, which is what the "[PATCH]"
thing was all about.
In other words, at least for the kernel, [PATCH] was a marker that said
"the author didn't commit this directly". Git already has that information
explicitly in the git data.
(Also, with proper "Signed-off-by:" lines it's also always clear that
there were other people involved, and that the author of the patch is
different from the person who applied it).
So I would personally not mind if we just made the "[PATCH]" prefix go
away entirely, or perhaps had a separate flag to "git-applymbox" that told
it to prepend a specific prefix to the Subject: line (which might not be
"[PATCH] " at all) defaulting to "no prefix".
PS. Another historical reason for marking patches explicitly was that
people were worried that introducing BK would somehow make the old
patch-based submissions be "second-class citizens". It was easy to make
statistics and show that at least half the real changes (as opposed to
merges) were still patch-based. So again, the "PATCH" marker had some
historical relevance, but I don't think it matters any more.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html