[PATCH, v2] wwwdocs: e-mail subject lines for contributions

[Richard Earnshaw (lists)]

On 21/01/2020 17:20, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 1/21/20 10:40 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 21/01/2020 15:39, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 03:33:22PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) 
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Some examples would be useful I'd say, e.g. it is unclear in what 
>>>>> way you
>>>>> want the PR number to be appended, shall it be
>>>>> something: whatever words describe it PR12345
>>>>> or
>>>>> something: whatever words describe it (PR12345)
>>>>> or
>>>>> something: whatever words describe it: PR12345
>>>>> or
>>>>> something: whatever words describe it [PR12345]
>>>>> or something else?
>>>>
>>>> Glibc use "[BZ #nnnn]" - obviously BZ becomes PR, but after that, 
>>>> I'm not
>>>> too worried.  I'd be happy with [PR #nnnn], but if folk want 
>>>> something else,
>>>> please say so quickly...
>>>
>>> [PR 12345] or [PR #12345] is bad, because the bugzilla won't 
>>> underline it,
>>> it needs to be either PR12345 word, or PR component/12345 .
>>
>> ok, lets go with [PRnnnn] then.
> 
> Doesn't this use of [] have the same problem with git am?

No, because only 'leading' [] blocks are removed - git mailinfo --help

> 
> My summaries are often describing the bug I'm fixing, i.e.
> 
> [PATCH] PR c++/91476 - anon-namespace reference temp clash between TUs.
> 
> which is also the first line of my ChangeLog entry.  I think you are 
> proposing
> 
> [COMMITTED] c++: Fix anon-namespace reference temp clash between TUs 
> (PR91476)
> 
> which can no longer be shared with the ChangeLog.
> 

I was trying to unify this with glibc.  They specify the bug number at 
the end of the line.

We can diverge if it's generally felt to be important, but details like 
this create needless friction for folk working in both communities.

R.