On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 05:49:22PM -0700, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:27:45AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> > By far, the most common subject-prefix I've seen other than "PATCH" is
> > "RFC PATCH" (or occasionally "PATCH RFC"). Seems worth optimizing for
> > the common case, to avoid having to spell it out the long way as
> > --subject-prefix='RFC PATCH'.
>
> "RFC" is the most common one for me, too. And if it ends here, I'm OK
> with it. But I'm a little worried with ending up with a proliferation of
> options.
I haven't seen a significant number of variations on subject prefixes; I
can't think of any other prefix I've seen often enough to suggest an
option.
> If we had a short-option for --subject-prefix, then:
>
> -P RFC
>
> is not so bad compared to "--rfc". But if you want to spell it as "RFC
> PATCH" that's getting a bit longer. We could have a short option for
> "tag this in the subject prefix _in addition_ to writing PATCH". And
> then you could do:
>
> -T RFC
>
> I dunno. One other thing to consider is that format-patch takes
> arbitrary diff options, so we'd want to avoid stomping on them with any
> short options (which is why I used "-T" instead of "-t", though I find
> it unlikely that many people use the latter with format-patch). That's a
> point in favor of --rfc, I think.
I agree; the short option space seems more contentious. And in any
case, I find --rfc more ergonomic than "-T RFC". :)
> > builtin/log.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > t/t4014-format-patch.sh | 9 +++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> Documentation?
Oops, thanks. I'll send v2 shortly.
> > +static int rfc_callback(const struct option *opt, const char *arg, int
> > unset)
> > +{
> > + subject_prefix = 1;
> > + ((struct rev_info *)opt->value)->subject_prefix = xstrdup("RFC PATCH");
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> I was going to complain that you don't free() the previous value, but
> actually the other callers do not xstrdup() in the first place (and we
> do not need to do so here, either, as it's a string literal). We
> actually _do_ allocate a new copy when reading the value from config,
> but it's probably not a big deal in practice to leak that.
>
> I also wonder if you could implement this as just:
>
> return subject_prefix_callback(opt, "RFC PATCH", unset);
>
> And then if you write the documentation as:
>
> --rfc::
> Behave as if --subject-prefix="RFC PATCH" was specified.
>
> then it will be trivially correct. :)
Nice idea; will do.
> > +cat >expect <<'EOF'
> > +Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/1] header with . in it
> > +EOF
> > +test_expect_success '--rfc' '
> > + git format-patch -n -1 --stdout --rfc >patch &&
> > + grep ^Subject: patch >actual &&
> > + test_cmp expect actual
> > +'
>
> Our usual style these days is to set up expectations inside the test
> blocks (and use "<<-" to get nice indentation; we also typically use
> "\EOF" but that's purely style).
I copied this from a test immediately above it. :)
I can change it easily enough, though.
- Josh Triplett
