On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 03:08:43PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Lucas Seiki Oshiro <lucasseikioshiro@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Subject: Re: [GSoC][RFC PATCH 0/6] Add --subject-extra-prefix flag to format-patch
>
> Hmph, instead use "--rfc=GSoC" to do [GSoC PATCH n/m] and please do
> not pile more "extra" on top?
I do understand though that `--rfc=GSoC` is not exactly discoverable for
a newcomer. Maybe a simpler fix would be to introduce an alias for that
option that is more discoverable? I don't have a great idea for how to
name it -- the best that comes to mind is `--patch-prefix`, which
mirrors `--subject-prefix`.
--patch-prefix=<prefix>
--rfc
Prepends the string `<prefix>` to the subject prefix. As the
subject prefix defaults to "PATCH", you’ll get "<prefix> PATCH"
by default.
When `--rfc` is given, the prefix will be set to "RFC" . RFC
means "Request For Comments"; use this when sending an
experimental patch for discussion rather than application.
"--rfc=WIP" may also be a useful way to indicate that a patch is
not complete yet ("WIP" stands for "Work In Progress").
If the convention of the receiving community for a particular
extra string is to have it after the subject prefix, the string
<prefix> can be prefixed with a dash ("-") to signal that the rest
of the <prefix> string should be appended to the subject prefix
instead, e.g., --patch-prefix='-(WIP)' results in "PATCH (WIP)".
We would hide away the optional value `[=<rfc>]` of the `--rfc` option
and instead advertise `--patch-prefix=<prefix>`. This would of course
only be a cosmetic change, we'd still accept the optional argument so
that we don't break backwards compatibility.
Patrick
