On Wed, 17 Nov 2010, Stefan Richter wrote:
I don't know what you asked Joe to change, but asking someone to use the documented canonical patch format:
<quote> The canonical patch subject line is:
Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase</quote>
should be fine. And there is no need for printf-ish templates for this in MAINTAINERS either.
That's exactly what I asked him to do. He said he's not willing to use anything for "subsystem" which can't be automatically generated.
Why should we codify our conventions in MAINTAINERS to accommodate the specific problem of virtually a _single_ patch author?
Conventions are living and are being adjusted all the time, as code organization changes, people join and go, projects start and cease.
Said author please looks the conventions up in the git history. If he finds that this decelerates his patch generation rate, he can surely code a script that looks into git for him and suggests plausible prefixes for his patch titles to him. Or he can collect a kind of database (a config file) locally for his own use in which he records conventional prefixes on the go.
Come on guys, this debate is really horribly boring.
Either the maintainer wants the patch. Then he is certainly able to apply it no matter the subject line (I personally am getting a lot of patches which don't follow the format I am using in my tree ... converting Subject: lines is so trivial that I have never felt like bothering anyone about it ... it's basically single condition in a shellscript). Or the maintainer doesn't feel like the patch is worth it, and then the subject-line format really doesn't matter.