On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Adam Dinwoodie <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The examples and common practice for adding markers such as "RFC" or > "v2" to the subject of patch emails is to have them within the same > brackets as the "PATCH" text, not after the closing bracket. Further, > the practice of `git format-patch` and the like, as well as what appears > to be the more common pratice on the mailing list, is to use "[RFC > PATCH]", not "[PATCH/RFC]". > > Update the SubmittingPatches article to match. > > Signed-off-by: Adam Dinwoodie <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > @@ -184,12 +184,14 @@ lose tabs that way if you are not careful. > It is a common convention to prefix your subject line with > [PATCH]. This lets people easily distinguish patches from other > -e-mail discussions. Use of additional markers after PATCH and > -the closing bracket to mark the nature of the patch is also > -encouraged. E.g. [PATCH/RFC] is often used when the patch is > -not ready to be applied but it is for discussion, [PATCH v2], > -[PATCH v3] etc. are often seen when you are sending an update to > -what you have previously sent. > +e-mail discussions. Use of markers in addition to PATCH within > +the brackets to describe the nature of the patch is also > +encouraged. E.g. [RFC PATCH] is often used when the patch is not > +ready to be applied but it is for discussion, and can be added > +with the `--rfc` argument to `git format-patch` or `git > +send-email`, while [PATCH v2], [PATCH v3] etc. are often seen It has become a bit of a run-on sentence, but aside from that and the unnecessary extra whitespace between "etc." and "are", it looks good to me. > +when you are sending an update to what you have previously sent, > +and can be added with the `-v <n>` arguments to the same commands.
