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

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 9:49 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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)

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?

-Tanya

On 01/27/2013 12:20 AM, Tanya Lattner wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 9:49 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> 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)
>
>
> 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?
Sounds great. Thanks Tanya!

Tobi