On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:49:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnel...@au1.ibm.com> writes: > > > Sounds good to me. Agreed that "RFC" is essentially the only prefix > > other than "PATCH" that I see, at least in the kernel. > > Around here I think we saw WIP too, and that makes me lean towards > Peff's earlier suggestion to allow an end-user supplied string in > front of PATCH, i.e. "-P RFC" => "--subject-prefix='RFC PATCH'", > even though I understand that those who _ONLY_ care about RFC would > prefer --rfc (5 keystrokes) over "-P RFC" (6 keystrokes).
I do share the concern raised elsewhere in the thread that adding new format-patch short options potentially conflicts with diff/rev-list short options. If you're not worried about that, I'd be happy to add (and document and test) -P. However, I'd still advocate adding --rfc as well; it's a common case, and "-P RFC" is actually rather more keystrokes when you count shifting. :) There might also be some value in steering people towards "RFC" (since a WIP is in a way an RFC). > >> +--rfc:: > >> + Alias for `--subject-prefix="RFC PATCH"`. Use this when > >> + sending an experimental patch for discussion rather than > >> + application. > > > > Perhaps mention the phrase "Request For Comment" for the benefit of > > those who aren't familiar ... > > Good point. I'll add that to the documentation in v3.
