Re: where is PRnnnn required again?

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2021, 23:58 Martin Sebor, <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/7/21 4:24 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021, 23:18 Martin Sebor, <msebor@gmail.com
> > <mailto:msebor@gmail.com>> 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?
>


My failed attempt to clarify the docs on commit message formats recommended
using the same text for the commit message and email. If there's a good
reason to deviate from that, I'd like to know. Not that I plan to change
those docs again, it was a waste of time.

Also, you're proposing that PR numbers don't need to be in the subject
and/or that if it's in the subject it doesn't need to be in the body. Is it
just because "it's inconvenient for my current workflow" ? If it's in the
subject of the patch, why wouldn't you put it in the email subject too?

If writing two different descriptions of the patch by hand is liable to not
meet the formatting conventions, it seems like using existing automation
for creating the message (and reusing it for the email) might be worth
trying.

That doesn't mean we can't also improve the convention.