On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote:
> - there are a non-trivial number of patches for other projects (JGIT,
> EGIT, StGit, etc). This is somewhat unique to git, where we discuss
> a lot of related projects on the list. But I wonder if other
> projects would use subsystems in a similar way (though I guess for
> the kernel, there are separate subsystems lists, so the "to" or "cc"
> header becomes the more interesting tag).
Working in the net-next community, we often use "[net PATCH]",
"[net-next] [PATCH]", or even just replace "PATCH" with "[net-next]"
and similar (though this is served just fine by --subject-prefix, and
may be an artifact caused because -P doesn't exist).
For the netdev, there are both "net" and "net-next" trees, and so
there is some need to distinguish between these. I prefer "[net
PATCH]" style myself.
I think --rfc is common enough to warrant its own tag, even if we add
"-P tag" just because it encourages its use for whenever you want to
comment about a patch without necessarily wanting it immediately
I also happen to prefer "RFC PATCH" instead of "PATCH/RFC" but I think
that's mostly preference.
> So I dunno what all this means. I do think "--rfc" to standardize on
> _some_ form of "RFC PATCH" or "PATCH/RFC" would serve the most people,
> and would make things more consistent. But at least in Git, people would
> be served by having arbitrary prefixes, too.
A general way to do this would be helpful, but i don't think it avoids
the usefulness of --rfc on its own.
I know that some formats are also generated by tools such as stgit
which has its own way to generate emails and doesn't use exactly the
same format as git.