Re: [PATCH] Implement git-quiltimport

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:

> ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>
>>    Given the ugliness in -mm making it an error to have an
>>    non-attributed patch would result in people specifying --author
>>    when they really don't know who the author is, giving us much
>>    less reliable information.
>>
>>    Possibly what we need is an option to not make it an error so that
>>    people doing this kind of thing in their own trees have useful
>>    information.
>
> I agree it is probably a good way to error by default, optinally
> allowing to say "don't care".  I do not think Linus would pull
> from such a tree or trees branched from it into his official
> tree, so I do not think we would need to worry about commits
> with incomplete information propagating for this particular
> "gitified mm" usage.  But as a general purpose tool to produce
> "gitified quilt series" tree, we would.
>
> It depends on the expected use of the resulting gitified mm
> tree.
>
> If it is for an individual developer to futz with and tweak
> upon, and the end result from the work leaves such a "gitified
> quilt series" repository only as a patch form, then not having
> to figure out and specify authorship information to many patches
> is probably a plus; the information will not be part of the
> official history recorded elsewhere anyway.

So what we need for this case really is a way to mark the
commit objects in such a way that git-fetch or git-merge
would choke on the commit objects and refuse to merge.
That way the changes could not easily propagate in the wild.
Every user would at least have to specify a non-default option,
that Linus at least would never specify.

This scenario is how I have been primarily using such a tree.

> However, if it is to produce a reference git tree to point
> people at, (i.e. the quiltimport script is run once per a series
> by somebody and the result is published for public use), I would
> imagine we would want to have the attribution straight, so if
> the tool has to "guess", it should either error out or go
> interactive and ask.

Reasonable.  Going interactive is probably the best way since it
appears that the patches do have sufficient information to derive
the user information from.  I know people have at various times
in the past made the Andrews tree available in git form so you
could do things like git-bisect, etc.  So I think we need to address
this issue.  Probably by at least asking Andrew about it.

I will take a look at the policy and see what I can do.  At
the very least the default we be to error on such a tree.

..

A infrastructure question came to me when looking at this:
several of the patches are from a branch with several authors.
How do we specify a commit in git with several authors?

There are cases when you have enough collaboration that even
a single patch could have multiple authors, contributing equally.

Eric