Re: Why do we need [PATCH]?

Sam Ravnborg wrote:

Hi git's.

I've just applied a patch to my git tree using git-applymbox.
It worked like a charm as it often do.
But then when I did a quick check with gitk it stuck me that
the subject was prefixed with [PATCH].
I am aware that the [PATCH] in subject tell me:
"patch is received from somewhere and applied by me to the .git tree".
This is in comparsion to patches received when I merge a git tree for
example.

But with common practice to use sign-off I wonder the value of this
patch marker.
When browsing the kernel shortlog I often focus on first word in subject
- cause this tells me what system/drivers is changed. But with the
  [PATCH] marker I have to read some non-sense to see actual subject.

The information is redundant since metadata already tell me who is the
author and who committed the change.
So could we have it removed or if people continue to find it usefull
then at least hide it behind some option. Using the [PATCH] prefix is
not the natural thing to do with git.

I looked at the source and found the -k option, but adding [PATCH]
should not be default behaviour so this is not the correct solution.

	Sam

[PATCH] makes sense for the actual email message so that the recipient 
knows that the message contains a patch.  But I agree that it does not 
add any value to the commit message in git.  It actually detracts value, 
because it takes up limited space in the shortlog message.

--
				Brian Gerst