From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 127699 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2020 18:57:02 -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 127686 invoked by uid 89); 3 Feb 2020 18:57:01 -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=emails 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 18:57:00 +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 013Ius0U006413; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 12:56:54 -0600 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 013IurtT006411; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 12:56:53 -0600 Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 18:57:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Michael Matz , "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" , Alexander Monakov , Gerald Pfeifer , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, GCC Development Subject: Re: [PATCH, v3] wwwdocs: e-mail subject lines for contributions Message-ID: <20200203185653.GB22482@gate.crashing.org> References: <91e48c52-4548-089b-707a-afd400001dac@arm.com> <1d2b74eb-842b-29a7-2abd-e2b34e12315c@arm.com> <20200203135416.GU22482@gate.crashing.org> <20200203175405.GG17695@tucnak> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200203175405.GG17695@tucnak> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 06:54:05PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 05:48:57PM +0000, Michael Matz wrote: > > 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. > > In email, they do carry information that is useful there, the distinction > whether a patch has been committed already and doesn't need review from > others, or whether it is a patch intended for patch review, or just a RFC > patch that is not yet ready for review, but submitter is looking for some > feedback. It's irrelevant whether a patch is committed or not whather it needs review, imnsho :-) "rfc" is useful, certainly. It makes clear that the sender would like some help, and/or that the subject might be controversial, both things that have more time pressure than most. Segher