From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1583 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2020 18:50:27 -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 1568 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jan 2020 18:50:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*MI:sk:e27487d, H*f:sk:e27487d, H*i:sk:e27487d, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: foss.arm.com Received: from foss.arm.com (HELO foss.arm.com) (217.140.110.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 18:50:16 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359311FB; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 10:50:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from e120077-lin.cambridge.arm.com (e120077-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.78.81]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 670623F6C4; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 10:50:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH, v2] wwwdocs: e-mail subject lines for contributions To: Jason Merrill , Jakub Jelinek Cc: Gerald Pfeifer , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, GCC Development References: <353faf3e-bf43-eb4d-542d-45a53dce77b2@arm.com> <20200121150440.GX10088@tucnak> <20200121153902.GY10088@tucnak> From: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" Message-ID: <4d99536c-c1af-b4ea-17b0-23b44a3bf8b7@arm.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:46:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2020-01/txt/msg00387.txt.bz2 On 21/01/2020 17:20, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 1/21/20 10:40 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> On 21/01/2020 15:39, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 03:33:22PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) >>> wrote: >>>>> Some examples would be useful I'd say, e.g. it is unclear in what >>>>> way you >>>>> want the PR number to be appended, shall it be >>>>> something: whatever words describe it PR12345 >>>>> or >>>>> something: whatever words describe it (PR12345) >>>>> or >>>>> something: whatever words describe it: PR12345 >>>>> or >>>>> something: whatever words describe it [PR12345] >>>>> or something else? >>>> >>>> Glibc use "[BZ #nnnn]" - obviously BZ becomes PR, but after that, >>>> I'm not >>>> too worried.  I'd be happy with [PR #nnnn], but if folk want >>>> something else, >>>> please say so quickly... >>> >>> [PR 12345] or [PR #12345] is bad, because the bugzilla won't >>> underline it, >>> it needs to be either PR12345 word, or PR component/12345 . >> >> ok, lets go with [PRnnnn] then. > > Doesn't this use of [] have the same problem with git am? No, because only 'leading' [] blocks are removed - git mailinfo --help > > My summaries are often describing the bug I'm fixing, i.e. > > [PATCH] PR c++/91476 - anon-namespace reference temp clash between TUs. > > which is also the first line of my ChangeLog entry.  I think you are > proposing > > [COMMITTED] c++: Fix anon-namespace reference temp clash between TUs > (PR91476) > > which can no longer be shared with the ChangeLog. > I was trying to unify this with glibc. They specify the bug number at the end of the line. We can diverge if it's generally felt to be important, but details like this create needless friction for folk working in both communities. R.