From: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>, Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org>
Cc: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>,
gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, v3] wwwdocs: e-mail subject lines for contributions
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 15:22:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <17ca4803-87f1-19db-b806-b1c6c231ff3e@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH6eHdShZcL34qbg1of3D693oSz+7t0UuDc9ox6Se_rqGFY8GQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 02/03/2020 14:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 14:31, Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/2/20 8:01 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2020 13:37, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/20 6:41 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>>>> On 22/01/2020 17:45, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [updated based on v2 discussions]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch proposes some new (additional) rules for email subject lines
>>>>>> when contributing to GCC. The goal is to make sure that, as far as
>>>>>> possible, the subject for a patch will form a good summary when the
>>>>>> message is committed to the repository if applied with 'git am'. Where
>>>>>> possible, I've tried to align these rules with those already in
>>>>>> use for glibc, so that the differences are minimal and only where
>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some things that differ from existing practice (at least by some
>>>>>> people)
>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Use '<topic>:' rather than '[<topic>]'
>>>>>> - This is more git friendly and works with 'git am'.
>>>>>> - Put bug numbers at the end of the line rather than the beginning.
>>>>>> - The bug number is useful, but not as useful as the brief summary.
>>>>>> Also, use the shortened form, as the topic part is more usefully
>>>>>> conveyed in the proper topic field (see above).
>>>>>
>>>>> I've not seen any follow-up to this version. Should we go ahead and
>>>>> adopt this?
>>
>>> I'd like to. But have we reached consensus? Seems that every time I
>>> produce a revised version of the text we end up in another round of bike
>>> shedding. (Is that a word?)
>>
>> I'm not sure I've seen a specific proposal following yours. Some
>> suggestions for differences, with varying degrees of forcefulness. I
>> still say go for it.
>
> Go for it.
>
> It's not like we're going to take away commit privs from people who
> use slight variations on the scheme. It's better to have a written
> policy that people should aim towards, and most people will follow in
> most cases.
>
OK, pushed. Folk can, of course, now propose changes to the text as it
stands...
R.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-02 15:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <c3928f40-2d71-fb5b-f2e0-3878ac88a2b7@arm.com>
[not found] ` <alpine.LSU.2.21.2001191425160.739@anthias.pfeifer.com>
[not found] ` <353faf3e-bf43-eb4d-542d-45a53dce77b2@arm.com>
2020-01-21 15:40 ` [PATCH, v2] " Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-01-21 16:03 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-01-21 16:14 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-01-21 16:38 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-01-21 16:43 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-01-21 19:27 ` Jason Merrill
2020-01-22 3:46 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-01-22 10:00 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-01-22 13:50 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-01-22 13:54 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-01-22 17:41 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-01-22 17:45 ` Marek Polacek
2020-01-22 17:50 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-01-22 9:07 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-01-22 16:05 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-01-22 16:37 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-01-22 18:49 ` [PATCH, v3] " Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-02-03 11:41 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-02-03 11:54 ` Alexander Monakov
2020-02-03 11:59 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-02-03 12:51 ` Alexander Monakov
2020-02-03 14:11 ` Jason Merrill
2020-02-03 15:13 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-02-03 15:15 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-02-03 13:54 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-02-03 14:00 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-02-03 14:13 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-02-03 15:05 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-02-03 16:12 ` Andrew Clayton
2020-02-03 17:17 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-02-03 17:19 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-02-03 17:31 ` Michael Matz
2020-02-03 17:36 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-02-03 17:49 ` Michael Matz
2020-02-03 17:54 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-02-03 18:09 ` Michael Matz
2020-02-04 10:41 ` Andrew Stubbs
2020-02-03 18:57 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-02-03 17:54 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-02-03 18:20 ` Michael Matz
2020-02-03 19:48 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-02-03 18:03 ` Joseph Myers
2020-02-03 17:34 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-02-27 13:38 ` Nathan Sidwell
2020-03-02 13:01 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-03-02 13:35 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-03-02 14:31 ` Nathan Sidwell
2020-03-02 14:41 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-03-02 15:22 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists) [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=17ca4803-87f1-19db-b806-b1c6c231ff3e@arm.com \
--to=richard.earnshaw@arm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gerald@pfeifer.com \
--cc=jwakely.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=nathan@acm.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).