[PATCH, v3] wwwdocs: e-mail subject lines for contributions

[Richard Earnshaw (lists)]

On 02/03/2020 14:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 14:31, Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/2/20 8:01 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2020 13:37, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/20 6:41 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>>>> On 22/01/2020 17:45, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [updated based on v2 discussions]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch proposes some new (additional) rules for email subject lines
>>>>>> when contributing to GCC.  The goal is to make sure that, as far as
>>>>>> possible, the subject for a patch will form a good summary when the
>>>>>> message is committed to the repository if applied with 'git am'.  Where
>>>>>> possible, I've tried to align these rules with those already in
>>>>>> use for glibc, so that the differences are minimal and only where
>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some things that differ from existing practice (at least by some
>>>>>> people)
>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Use '<topic>:' rather than '[<topic>]'
>>>>>>     - This is more git friendly and works with 'git am'.
>>>>>> - Put bug numbers at the end of the line rather than the beginning.
>>>>>>     - The bug number is useful, but not as useful as the brief summary.
>>>>>>       Also, use the shortened form, as the topic part is more usefully
>>>>>>       conveyed in the proper topic field (see above).
>>>>>
>>>>> I've not seen any follow-up to this version.  Should we go ahead and
>>>>> adopt this?
>>
>>> I'd like to.  But have we reached consensus?  Seems that every time I
>>> produce a revised version of the text we end up in another round of bike
>>> shedding.  (Is that a word?)
>>
>> I'm not sure I've seen a specific proposal following yours.  Some
>> suggestions for differences, with varying degrees of forcefulness.  I
>> still say go for it.
> 
> Go for it.
> 
> It's not like we're going to take away commit privs from people who
> use slight variations on the scheme. It's better to have a written
> policy that people should aim towards, and most people will follow in
> most cases.
> 

OK, pushed.   Folk can, of course, now propose changes to the text as it 
stands...

R.