From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 129532 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2020 15:05:03 -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 129514 invoked by uid 89); 3 Feb 2020 15:05:02 -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*f:sk:CAH6eHd, H*i:sk:CAH6eHd, states, person 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; Mon, 03 Feb 2020 15:05:01 +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 D2BD530E; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 07:04:59 -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 EC7B83F68E; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 07:04:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH, v3] wwwdocs: e-mail subject lines for contributions To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: Segher Boessenkool , Alexander Monakov , Gerald Pfeifer , gcc-patches , GCC Development References: <353faf3e-bf43-eb4d-542d-45a53dce77b2@arm.com> <91e48c52-4548-089b-707a-afd400001dac@arm.com> <1d2b74eb-842b-29a7-2abd-e2b34e12315c@arm.com> <20200203135416.GU22482@gate.crashing.org> From: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 15:05:00 -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: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 On 03/02/2020 14:13, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:00, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> Where does your '50 chars' limit come from? It's not in the glibc text, >> and it's not in the linux kernel text either. AFAICT this is your >> invention and you seem to be the only person proposing it. > > It's a fairly well established convention, e.g. > https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/ and it's what Github suggests > (and whines if you go past it). > That suggest it as a limit for everything. If you have a tag and a bug number then then that would leave very little for the real part of the summary and would likely lead to something meaningless or incomprehensible in the remaining characters. That might be OK for small projects, but for something the size of gcc, I think keeping the extra flexibility is useful. >> I think the linux rule (the whole line, not including the parts that are >> removed on commit, should not exceed 75 characters) is far more sensible >> - which is why this draft states this. > > I'm OK with that. > OK, thanks. R.