Return-path: Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.11]:50327 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932710AbbGHJ3A (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jul 2015 05:29:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Clarification for the use of additional fields in the message body To: Julian Calaby References: <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <558EB32E.6090003@users.sourceforge.net> <558EB4DE.3080406@users.sourceforge.net> <20150707023103.GA22043@kroah.com> <559B6FF8.9010704@users.sourceforge.net> <559B85CD.6040200@users.sourceforge.net> <559BBDD6.7040808@users.sourceforge.net> <559BFB19.2080700@users.sourceforge.net> <559CCC9D.8050606@users.sourceforge.net> Cc: Frans Klaver , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Chris Park , Dean Lee , Johnny Kim , Rachel Kim , linux-wireless , "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" , Julia Lawall , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: <559CED4C.1080402@users.sourceforge.net> (sfid-20150708_112951_124731_ED78304D) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:28:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > If it's harmless, then no, but in this case, people are questioning > why you're adding it as it adds no value Some Git software developers care to keep the information complete for the author commit. > to anyone and makes it look like you don't know what you're doing. I specify message field overrides in my update suggestions intentionally. > The issue is that the headers you're adding, From: and Date: are unnecessary. We have got different opinions about the purpose. > The From: header you add is unnecessary as your email's From: header > has the exact same information. I would like to point out that there is a slight difference in my use case. > The reason it's there is because sometimes people forward patches on > from other people, e.g. if I were to resend one of your patches, > I'd add a From: header to the body of the email so it'd be credited to you. I am also interested in such an use case. > The Date: header you add is unnecessary as git-format-patch sets the > date header in the email it produces to the author date stored in the commit. How do you think about my extra patch preparation for the mentioned mail forwarding? > So if you're sending your patches in emails produced by git-format-patch, > there's absolutely no reason to include it. I disagree here to some degree. The difference in suggested commit timestamps of a few minutes might look negligible for some patches. There are few occasions where the delay between a concrete commit and its publishing by an interface like email can become days. > They are both almost completely irrelevant for most workflows as people > are less interested in when a commit was made and more interested in what > release it's in, how it was merged, etc. All of which should be > determined without using the timestamp. How often will it matter who made and published a change first? > To be honest, I've only ever used that timestamp for reporting > purposes at work, and I'd be surprised if anyone was doing anything > other than that with them. Thanks for your detailed feedback. > How would you feel if someone came in to your place of work > and told you to change how you do the job you've been doing for years > without a good reason? You might feel uncomfortable for a moment if you would interpret such a suggestion as a personal attack. I guess that I point only a few technical details out which can change the popularity of existing functionality from the Git software. Regards, Markus