Re: [RFC 2/3] am: semi working --cover-at-tip

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin <NMoreyChaisemartin@suse.de> writes:

>  	if (!git_config_get_bool("commit.gpgsign", &gpgsign))
>  		state->sign_commit = gpgsign ? "" : NULL;
> +
>  }

Please give at least a cursory proof-reading before sending things
out.

> @@ -1106,14 +1131,6 @@ static void am_next(struct am_state *state)
>  
>  	oidclr(&state->orig_commit);
>  	unlink(am_path(state, "original-commit"));
> -
> -	if (!get_oid("HEAD", &head))
> -		write_state_text(state, "abort-safety", oid_to_hex(&head));
> -	else
> -		write_state_text(state, "abort-safety", "");
> -
> -	state->cur++;
> -	write_state_count(state, "next", state->cur);

Moving these lines to a later part of the source file is fine, but
can you do so as a separate preparatory patch that does not change
anything else?  That would unclutter the main patch that adds the
feature, allowing better reviews from reviewers.

The hunk below...

> +/**
> + * Increments the patch pointer, and cleans am_state for the application of the
> + * next patch.
> + */
> +static void am_next(struct am_state *state)
> +{
> +	struct object_id head;
> +
> +	/* Flush the cover letter if needed */
> +	if (state->cover_at_tip == 1 &&
> +	    state->series_len > 0 &&
> +	    state->series_id == state->series_len &&
> +	    state->cover_id > 0)
> +		do_apply_cover(state);
> +
> +	am_clean(state);
> +
> +	if (!get_oid("HEAD", &head))
> +		write_state_text(state, "abort-safety", oid_to_hex(&head));
> +	else
> +		write_state_text(state, "abort-safety", "");
> +
> +	state->cur++;
> +	write_state_count(state, "next", state->cur);
> +}

... if you followed that "separate preparatory step" approach, would
show clearly that you added the logic to call do_apply_cover() when
we transition after applying the Nth patch of a series with N patches,
as all the existing lines will show only as unchanged context lines.

By the way, don't we want to sanity check state->last (which we
learn by running "git mailsplit" that splits the incoming mbox into
pieces and counts the number of messages) against state->series_len?
Sometimes people send [PATCH 0-6/6], a 6-patch series with a cover
letter, and then follow-up with [PATCH 7/6].  For somebody like me,
it would be more convenient if the above code (more-or-less) ignored
series_len and called do_apply_cover() after applying the last patch
(which would be [PATCH 7/6]) based on what state->last says.

Thanks.