Re: b4 bugs / future improvements

[Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1791 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 03:16:33PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 10:04:39AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > If you're doing an inter-version changelog it's common to say something
> > > > like "rebased against foo" in there.  It's a bit clearer about things
> > > > than base-commit.
> > > 
> > > No, I don't think that's what Maxime means -- "rebased against foo" can be
> > > done using "b4 prep --edit-cover".
> > 
> > Yeah, I'm manually editing the JSON part. But tbf, I don't really know
> > why I started doing it, so it might be fixed for a while, or never an
> > issue in the first place.
> 
> If you're using the "commit" (default) strategy, then you really don't need to
> worry about the base-branch bit in the JSON tracking info.

I just tested and it indeed just works, sorry for the confusion :)

> > > I think there's two things going on:
> > > 
> > > 1. he's using a different cover strategy that requires base-branch tracking
> > > 2. he's rebasing on a different branch, as opposed to a newer tag within the
> > >    same branch
> > 
> > If it causes any issue, then it could be the reason yeah. I do rebase
> > across different branches from time to time, so it might be why I
> > started doing so.
> 
> When we keep the cover letter at the start of the series, then we don't really
> care about the base branch -- we know exactly where the series starts, so we
> don't need to keep any information about the tracking branch around. Next time
> you rebase, just ignore the base-branch entry.
> 
> I will look at improving the trailers matching logic in the near future
> (that's unrelated to rebasing -- we just need to have a sane fall-back when
> the patch-id changes).

Awesome, thanks

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]