On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 11:27:50AM +0000, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:07 AM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 17:42, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 04:19:25PM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > > I've already proposed a more specific format for libstdc++: > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2019-09/msg00122.html > > > > > > > > PR libstdc++/12345 takes up the first 19 chars of the short subject, > > > > adding no useful information (unless the reader knows all PRs by heart, > > > > you need to look it up to know what it is). > > > > > > > > I usually put (PR12345) at the end of the subject. The area is clear > > > > from the rest of the subject already. > > > > > > Agreed. (Hint to patch submitters: if the subject line of your patch > > > submission is just "Fix PR12345" or similar, people are less likely to > > > review your patch because nothing about the subject tells anyone that the > > > patch is in their area and so something they should pay attention to. > > > Patch submissions need to have subjects that make clear very quickly what > > > the patch is about. This is also why I don't care for [PATCH] tags at the > > > start of subject lines - they take away space for saying what the patch is > > > about, and on gcc-patches we can expect things are patches, [PATCH] > > > doesn't add useful information.) > > > > I don't mind [PATCH] in the subject of patch emails (maybe because > > nearly all my patches go to libstdc++@ as well, and not all mails on > > that list are patches), but it has negative value in the commit log. > > I actively like [PATCH] in the subject line because I see patch mail > interleaved with other mail in my inbox. > > > My mail to the libstdc++ list should have noted that [PATCH] tags in > > the email subject should be omitted from the summary in the first line > > of the commit log. > > And git format-patch/git am automatically add and remove [PATCH] > appropriately.
Wrt [PATCH]: if we keep it, do we want to have a system to distinguish C/C++/... patches? Do we want [C++ PATCH] or [PATCH][C++] or [C++][PATCH], something else? (I find the latter two a bit ugly.) Marek
