[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: put commit messages in *-commits subject lines?

[Tobias Grosser]

On 01/26/2013 01:41 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:37 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/26/2013 12:15 AM, Daniel Dunbar wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, this is done and seems to work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as Chris's request for getting "key directory" paths into the
>>>>>> commit message, I thought about working on it, but in the end I'm not
>>>>>> sure why we shouldn't just encourage people to self-tag their leading
>>>>>> commit line with some sort of standard key ([MC], [Target/Mips],
>>>>>> whatever).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Very nice.
>>>>>
>>>>> While at that, who can get rid of the [llvm],[cfe-commits], ... prefixes?
>>>>> I remember we agreed they just cost screen real estate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Careful here, these may be used to set up filters in mail clients, and
>>> an alternative has to be provided.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> For instance, I have a filter that sends all [compiler-rt] related
>>> mail to its own folder, which is quite important for me.
>>
>> the [compiler-rt] prefix is for the specific repository, rather than
>> the mailing list - that would remain (it's part of the svn mail
>> sending process), but the mailing list prefix is a property of the
>> mailing list software overall, which is what's going to (potentially)
>> be removed.
>>
>
> OK, I see.
>
>> That being said, even though I (& probably most gmail users) have
>> mailing list rules setup based on list headers rather than subject
>> prefixes, like you, I wouldn't be sure that everyone has this setup or
>> that it's convenient for everyone to do so.
>>
>> I'd like this change, I'm just not sure how to evaluate whether it's
>> correct (short of changing it seeing how many people complain/how many
>> of them cannot be helped/fixed)
>
> I guess that the need can be summarized to:
>
> - If email comes from separate email addresses (or "to" separate
> addresses), further specification in the subject is superfluous and
> can be nuked.
> - If email is otherwise indistinguishable but comes from different
> sub-projects, some specification in the subject has to be retained to
> allow effective mailbox management.
>
> What am I missing?

I don't see anything missing.

I asked to remove the list name from the subject, as it is already 
provided in the "List-Id" header of all mailing list emails and is 
consequently redundant. The different svn sub-projects are useful and I 
don't think we should remove this information.

Chris replied to that request earlier (15. Nov):

 > I agree that the list name is redundant and should be dropped, but
 > the revision number is compact and very useful...
 >
 > -Chris

If we agreed to perform this change and we found the person who can 
change it, we can probably give a heads-up a couple of days before to 
see if anybody will have major issues.

Cheers,
Tobi