From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 118809 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2020 13:54:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 118791 invoked by uid 89); 3 Feb 2020 13:54:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=fifty X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Feb 2020 13:54:23 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 013DsHO2019636; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 07:54:17 -0600 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 013DsG3g019635; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 07:54:16 -0600 Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 13:54:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Alexander Monakov Cc: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" , Gerald Pfeifer , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, GCC Development Subject: Re: [PATCH, v3] wwwdocs: e-mail subject lines for contributions Message-ID: <20200203135416.GU22482@gate.crashing.org> References: <353faf3e-bf43-eb4d-542d-45a53dce77b2@arm.com> <91e48c52-4548-089b-707a-afd400001dac@arm.com> <1d2b74eb-842b-29a7-2abd-e2b34e12315c@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 02:54:05PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > > > I've not seen any follow-up to this version. Should we go ahead and adopt > > this? > > Can we please go with 'committed' (lowercase) rather than all-caps COMMITTED? > Spelling this with all-caps seems like a recent thing on gcc-patches, before > everyone used the lowercase version, which makes more sense (no need to shout > about the thing that didn't need any discussion before applying the patch). Lower case certainly makes more sense. None of this are *rules*. We should not pretend they are. An email subject should be useful to what the receivers of that email use it for: see if it very interesting to them, see if it probably not interesting to them: that's the "smth: " at the start, and the PR number at the end, and of course the actual subject itself, so we should not put in too much fluff in the subject, there needs to be room left (in the less than fifty chars total) for an actual subject :-) (The example in the patch does not capitalise the subject line, btw. It should.) Segher