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

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

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
wrote:
> 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.
I'm assuming this will already be the case - perhaps I'm
misunderstanding something though. I was assuming that the [pool]
[poolalloc] [libc++] prefixes were added by the SVN mailing software
(which we're not planning to touch) and the [llvm-commits],
[cfe-commits], [llvm-dev], [cfe-dev], [cfe-users] prefixes are handled
by the mailing list software which we'll modify/reconfigure to not
include any of the prefixes.

On Jan 28, 2013, at 9:56 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at
apple.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I'm assuming this will already be the case - perhaps I'm
> misunderstanding something though. I was assuming that the [pool]
> [poolalloc] [libc++] prefixes were added by the SVN mailing software
> (which we're not planning to touch) and the [llvm-commits],
> [cfe-commits], [llvm-dev], [cfe-dev], [cfe-users] prefixes are handled
> by the mailing list software which we'll modify/reconfigure to not
> include any of the prefixes.

I thought we were removing just the list name too. I am going to do this
shortly.

-Tanya

On Jan 28, 2013, at 9:56 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at
apple.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I'm assuming this will already be the case - perhaps I'm
> misunderstanding something though. I was assuming that the [pool]
> [poolalloc] [libc++] prefixes were added by the SVN mailing software
> (which we're not planning to touch) and the [llvm-commits],
> [cfe-commits], [llvm-dev], [cfe-dev], [cfe-users] prefixes are handled
> by the mailing list software which we'll modify/reconfigure to not
> include any of the prefixes.
Btw, I'm starting with cfe-commits and llvm-commits first to see how things
go. I'll do the other lists if everyone is happy with it. I sent the
announcement, and plan to change it in an hour or two  (giving those a chance to
read it).

-Tanya