llvm dev - Jan 2013 - [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: put commit messages in *-commits subject lines?

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.

For instance, I have a filter that sends all [compiler-rt] related
mail to its own folder, which is quite important for me.

Eli

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.

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)

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?

Eli