Re: [PATCH, v3] wwwdocs: e-mail subject lines for contributions

["Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>]

On 03/02/2020 17:48, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> 
>> The idea is that the [...] part is NOT part of the commit, only part of
>> the email.
> 
> I understand that, but the subject line of this thread says "e-mail
> subject lines", so I thought we were talking about, well, exactly that;
> and I see no value of these tags in e-mails either.
> 
> (They might have a low but non-zero value for projects that use
> a single mailing list for patches and generic discussion, but we are not
> such project)
> 
> Basically: if they are deemed to clutter the git log for whatever reason,
> then there must be a very good argument for why they not also clutter
> e-mail subject lines, but instead are essential to have there,
> but not in the log.
> 

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.

>> 'git am' would strip leading [...] automatically unless
>> you've configured, or asked git to do otherwise.  So that leading part
>> is not counted for the length calculation.
> 
> There's still e-mail netiquette which also should be obeyed, or at least
> not contradicted by git netiquette.
> 

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.

R.