From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
To: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] format-patch: "--rfc=-(WIP)" appends to produce [PATCH (WIP)]
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 11:17:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e4206b6d-13bb-4332-93b3-09721c1b4152@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f9aae9692493e4b722ce9f38de73c810@manjaro.org>
Hi Dragan
On 21/04/2024 20:37, Dragan Simic wrote:
> Hello Junio,
>
> On 2024-04-21 20:59, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> In the previous step, the "--rfc" option of "format-patch" learned
>> to take an optional string value to prepend to the subject prefix,
>> so that --rfc=WIP can give "[WIP PATCH]". This commit shows that
>> the mechanism can be extended easily to allow "--rfc=-(WIP)" [*1*]
>> to signal that the extra string is to be appended instead of getting
>> prepended, resulting in "[PATCH (WIP)]".
>>
>> Having worked on the patch, I am personally not 100% on board with
>> this part of the feature myself, and that is why this update is a
>> separate step from the main "--rfc takes an optional string value"
>> step.
>>
>> If a way to prepend an arbitrary adornment is added to the system,
>> and people can now say "--rfc=RESEND" to produce "[RESEND PATCH]",
>> those who used to use "[PATCH RESEND]" by tweaking the subject
>> prefix in other ways [*2*] would do one of three things:
>
> There are even more issues, such as the grammar-related ones.
I think it is best to view the subject prefix as a list of space
separated labels or keywords rather than part of a grammatically correct
sentence.
Best Wishes
Phillip
Let
> me explain, please, as accurately as I can do that as a non-native
> English speaker who spent many years studying English grammar.
>
> Writing "RFC PATCH" puts "RFC" into the role of an adjective, which
> is fine. The same obviously applies to "WIP PATCH". On the other
> hand, writing "RESEND PATCH" puts "RESEND" into its only possible
> role, which is transitive verb, and results in "RESEND PATCH" that
> serves as a very simple sentence in imperative mood. I'm not sure
> that, strictly technically speaking, having simple sentences as the
> prefixes is the desired outcome.
>
> Technically, we should use "RE-SENT PATCH" to be on the correct side
> from the grammar perspective, with "RE-SENT" serving as an adjective.
> Before you ask, no, we can't use "RESENT" there, because its meaning
> is completely different. However, nobody uses "RE-SENT PATCH", or
> at least I haven't seen it used yet.
>
> When it comes to "PATCH RESEND", "RESEND" remains in its transitive
> verb role, but "PATCH", as a noun, becomes a modifier of the verb.
> Thus, the resulting meaning of "PATCH RESEND" becomes something like
> "resend an item that's a patch", but not written in form of a simple
> (or less simple) sentence. Strictly technically, a noun should only
> modify another noun, but bending English grammar a bit this way is
> much better than actually having a simple sentence as a prefix.
>
> With all this in mind, I think that allowing the "--rfc=-<string>"
> form is the way to go. Computer lingo often bends English grammar
> to a certain degree, to achieve compactness, but bending and dumbing
> it down more that it's actually necessary isn't something that we
> should embrace.
>
> I hope all this makes sense.
>
>> (1) keep using their existing ways and keep sending their message
>> with the "[RESEND PATCH]" prefix.
>>
>> (2) rejoice in the new automation, switch to use "--rfc=RESEND",
>> and start sending their messages with "[RESEND PATCH]" prefix
>> instead of "[PATCH RESEND]" prefix.
>>
>> (3) complain and demand a way to append instead of prepend so that
>> they can use an automation to produce "[PATCH RESEND]" prefix.
>>
>> I do not believe in adding slightly different ways that allow users
>> to be "original" when such differences do not make the world better
>> in meaningful ways [*3*], and I expect there are many more folks who
>> share that sentiment and go to route (2) than those who go to route
>> (3). If my expectation is true, it means that this patch goes in a
>> wrong direction, and I would be happy to drop it.
>>
>>
>> [Footnote]
>>
>> *1* The syntax takes inspiration from Perl's three-arg open syntax
>> that uses pipes "open fh, '|-', 'cmd'", where the dash signals
>> "the other stuff comes here".
>>
>> *2* ... because "--rfc" in released versions does not even take any
>> string value to prepend, let alone append, to begin with.
>>
>> *3*
>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/b4d2b3faaf2914b7083327d5a4be3905@manjaro.org/
>> gathered some stats to observe that "[RFC PATCH]" is more
>> common than "[PATCH RFC]" by a wide margin, while trying to see
>> how common "[RESEND PATCH]" (or "[PATCH RESED]") were used (the
>> answer: much less common). But it wouldn't have needed to
>> count "[PATCH RFC]" and "[RFC PATCH]" separately if using a
>> prefix and not a suffix (or vice versa) were established more
>> firmly as the standard practice.
>>
>> It is a fine example that useless diversity making needless
>> work.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-24 10:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-18 22:54 [PATCH] format-patch: allow --rfc to optionally take a value, like --rfc=WIP Junio C Hamano
2024-04-19 0:29 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-19 14:09 ` Phillip Wood
2024-04-19 17:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-21 14:18 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-19 18:00 ` Jeff King
2024-04-19 18:19 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-19 22:01 ` [PATCH v2] " Junio C Hamano
2024-04-21 15:41 ` Phillip Wood
2024-04-21 18:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-21 18:59 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] format-patch --rfc=WIP Junio C Hamano
2024-04-21 18:59 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] format-patch: allow --rfc to optionally take a value, like --rfc=WIP Junio C Hamano
2024-04-21 18:59 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] format-patch: "--rfc=-(WIP)" appends to produce [PATCH (WIP)] Junio C Hamano
2024-04-21 19:37 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-24 10:17 ` Phillip Wood [this message]
2024-04-24 15:52 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-23 17:52 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] format-patch --rfc=WIP Junio C Hamano
2024-04-23 17:52 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] format-patch: allow --rfc to optionally take a value, like --rfc=WIP Junio C Hamano
2024-04-24 10:16 ` Phillip Wood
2024-04-23 17:52 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] format-patch: "--rfc=-(WIP)" appends to produce [PATCH (WIP)] Junio C Hamano
2024-04-24 10:16 ` Phillip Wood
2024-04-24 15:25 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-24 16:34 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-24 15:58 ` Dragan Simic
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e4206b6d-13bb-4332-93b3-09721c1b4152@gmail.com \
--to=phillip.wood123@gmail.com \
--cc=dsimic@manjaro.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).