On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:49:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnel...@au1.ibm.com> writes:
> > Sounds good to me. Agreed that "RFC" is essentially the only prefix
> > other than "PATCH" that I see, at least in the kernel.
> Around here I think we saw WIP too, and that makes me lean towards
> Peff's earlier suggestion to allow an end-user supplied string in
> front of PATCH, i.e. "-P RFC" => "--subject-prefix='RFC PATCH'",
> even though I understand that those who _ONLY_ care about RFC would
> prefer --rfc (5 keystrokes) over "-P RFC" (6 keystrokes).
I do share the concern raised elsewhere in the thread that adding new
format-patch short options potentially conflicts with diff/rev-list
short options. If you're not worried about that, I'd be happy to add
(and document and test) -P. However, I'd still advocate adding --rfc as
well; it's a common case, and "-P RFC" is actually rather more
keystrokes when you count shifting. :)
There might also be some value in steering people towards "RFC" (since a
WIP is in a way an RFC).
> >> +--rfc::
> >> + Alias for `--subject-prefix="RFC PATCH"`. Use this when
> >> + sending an experimental patch for discussion rather than
> >> + application.
> > Perhaps mention the phrase "Request For Comment" for the benefit of
> > those who aren't familiar ...
> Good point.
I'll add that to the documentation in v3.