Hello Junio,
On 2024-04-19 19:03, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
@@ -1932,7 +1944,9 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char
**argv, const char *prefix)
N_("mark the series as Nth re-roll")),
OPT_INTEGER(0, "filename-max-length", &fmt_patch_name_max,
N_("max length of output filename")),
- OPT_BOOL(0, "rfc", &rfc, N_("use [RFC PATCH] instead of
[PATCH]")),
+ OPT_CALLBACK_F(0, "rfc", &rfc, N_("extra"),
+ N_("add <extra> (default 'RFC') before 'PATCH'"),
+ PARSE_OPT_NONEG|PARSE_OPT_OPTARG, rfc_callback),
This is a change in behavior as it looks like we previously accepted
"--no-rfc" is that deliberate?
I just matched the subject-prefix without thinking. Will fix.
Here is what I plan to squash in, but we are about to enter the
pre-release stabilization period, so the progress on this new
feature will have to slow down.
Let me remind you about the need to also support "[PATCH RESEND]",
for example, in this new feature. Please see my earlier response [1]
for a possible solution.
Even some instructions for submitting patches, in some projects,
specify "[PATCH RESEND]" as the expected prefix, not "[RESEND PATCH]".
Thus, suffixes for the prefix should be supported.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/git/84dcb80be916f85cbb6a4b99aea0d76b@xxxxxxxxxxx/
