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

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

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

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>
wrote:
> 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.
SGTM - thanks for the recap/quotation. (but, yes, I'm not the person
who can change that - hopefully Tanya or one of the other admins will
speak up with details)

On Jan 26, 2013, at 3:20 PM, Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org>
wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> SGTM - thanks for the recap/quotation. (but, yes, I'm not the
person
>> who can change that - hopefully Tanya or one of the other admins will
>> speak up with details)
> 
> 
> Yes, I can remove the list name. I'll confirm with Chris and I can send
email to the lists before it is done. Sound ok?
Would it make sense to remove [llvm-commits] and [cfe-commits], but keep
[polly], [poolalloc], [libc++] etc?    That way, the common case is more
compact, but the other repos are still distinguishable.

-Chris