On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 06:20:20PM +0000, Michael Matz wrote: > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > > Well, I'd review a patch differently depending on whether or not it was > > already committed, a patch requiring review or an RFC looking for more > > general comments, so I *do* think such an email prefix is useful. > > As I said: a very good argument must be made; it might be that rfc falls > into the useful-tag category.
Yes, "rfc" can be useful to know *before* reading the mail. > > The 50 char limit seems to come from wanting git log --oneline to not wrap > > in > > an 80 column terminal. Whilst laudable, I'm not sure that such a limit > > doesn't become too restrictive and then lead to hard-to-understand > > summaries. > > In my experience hard-to-understand summaries are more related to people > writing them than to length, IOW, I fear a larger limit like 72 characters > won't help that. Yup. If it helps, don't think of it as "summary", think of it as "title". Segher
