From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi1-x232.google.com (mail-oi1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::232]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B4B63857402 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 22:58:52 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 8B4B63857402 Received: by mail-oi1-x232.google.com with SMTP id b2so5430511oiy.6 for ; Wed, 07 Jul 2021 15:58:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wLcT339DfJORmHPhIZojxnqTcobgpMVqf3TVEjOyD8k=; b=NX+Po16At6Se7UYWTuakS9x6CkQ/h6/bVDtbV311k3tPxZKnNbj+2jKNrj48Ed73Vq D8niG2dXcfMmrn3ZPxwcdM/NQuYZ4t5JU/O64xFR+ljAUUxV9yJm6OfQwH1noIdTES8Q H3ZXvpBR8iz+7hWwnFynFg6MingxbkByOasfGlWtKsumAUVRhkNwpRfdpCvs9a3aMIjr ALK3IDEEepPkQckZEdOEfSMvFeEWfFnAw/D2M2JcdBfKK3EKOat2/QKVjqH3phCbucPn bOOfIZfTr8GynfyL3Vf4WXFmPOkD+e2BoPzi4/5XXWb9SKMEMVXO4zQgi1xDONUvRb9q scHg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530VEtQmp9pMM756JJaWEkceoecnz6mo8AlXpFYiYjW2ZasBZ4Fy Z+fej0d/x015UUrMUTJ5G87LpCAzGgk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyQV5+CwXgPY9VHKYJdf36EE3+SQRs+0ZKSMpehPgpJppR+D7H9b18K9pMtUbLVXpXwsgj4oQ== X-Received: by 2002:aca:4710:: with SMTP id u16mr15168415oia.26.1625698731889; Wed, 07 Jul 2021 15:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.41] (75-166-102-22.hlrn.qwest.net. [75.166.102.22]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h96sm125391oth.25.2021.07.07.15.58.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Jul 2021 15:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: where is PRnnnn required again? To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: Marek Polacek , gcc mailing list References: <9121724e-e741-9bad-a39d-d6ac49422589@gmail.com> <734e36bd-5adb-feed-7e89-d63d233198a4@gmail.com> From: Martin Sebor Message-ID: <4be7bb29-c830-05b9-99e5-7e54966d4b5c@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 16:58:50 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2021 22:58:53 -0000 On 7/7/21 4:24 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021, 23:18 Martin Sebor, > wrote: > > On 7/7/21 3:53 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > I'm not sure why you keep hitting so many issues; git addlog > takes care of > > this stuff for me and I've had no trouble pushing my patches.  Is > there > > a reason you don't use it also? > > I probably have a completely different workflow.  Git addlog isn't > a git command (is it some sort of a GCC extension?), and what I put > in the subject of my emails is almost never the same thing as what > I put in the commit message. > > > Why not? Why is it useful to write two different explanations of the patch? Sometimes, maybe. I don't really think about it too much. I'm not the only one who does it. But what bearing does what we put in the subject of our patch submissions have on this discussion? You may have one way of doing things and others another. Yours may even be better/more streamlined, I don't know. That doesn't mean our tooling should make things more difficult for the the rest of us. Martin