Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> writes: > The problem is that I can't really automate the subject munging. The > concrete subjects in this case were: > >> OvmfPkg/QemuFwCfgLib: Implement SEV internal function for SEC phase >> OvmfPkg/QemuFwCfgLib: Implement SEV internal functions for PEI phase >> OvmfPkg/QemuFwCfgLib: Implement SEV internal function for Dxe phase > ... > So, even in kernel land, if subjects up to 75 columns are permitted, but > FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX is 64, conflicts are possible, at least in theory, > aren't they? With the numbers stripped, of course.
Yup, configurable lengthening or unconditional lengthening to 75 or so do not sound _too_ bad. If I sounded like I was opposed to lengthening, that wasn't what I meant. It was more like "if you can meaningfully abbreviate, you may help not just format-patch filenames but other use cases, and you might even be able to get away without lengthening"; if there is no meaningful way to abbreviate, raising the max length may be the only workable solution.
