From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcel Holtmann Subject: Re: [PATCH Cogito] Make use of external editor work like CVS Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 19:17:47 +0200 Message-ID: <1115572667.9031.139.camel@pegasus> References: <1115564550.9031.96.camel@pegasus> <20050508152529.GU9495@pasky.ji.cz> <1115566990.9031.108.camel@pegasus> <20050508155656.GV9495@pasky.ji.cz> <1115568937.9031.129.camel@pegasus> <20050508171209.GX9495@pasky.ji.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: GIT Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun May 08 19:12:12 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DUpJT-0005wT-Pw for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 08 May 2005 19:11:32 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262896AbVEHRSf (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 May 2005 13:18:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262898AbVEHRSf (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 May 2005 13:18:35 -0400 Received: from coyote.holtmann.net ([217.160.111.169]:57005 "EHLO mail.holtmann.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262896AbVEHRSa (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 May 2005 13:18:30 -0400 Received: from pegasus (p5487D02F.dip.t-dialin.net [84.135.208.47]) by mail.holtmann.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-7.1) with ESMTP id j48HJkWX004197 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 8 May 2005 19:19:47 +0200 To: Petr Baudis In-Reply-To: <20050508171209.GX9495@pasky.ji.cz> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.83, clamav-milter version 0.83 on coyote.holtmann.net X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Petr, > > What do you think about a special flag for automatic merging (which > > makes the commit message say "Automatic merge") and a .cogitorc file > > like .cvsrc where you can choose the default method. > > > > I am using a lot of temporary trees where I pull a lot of kernel > > subsystems together and I don't need that "feature" there. > > No problem with that per se, but please keep the configfile > infrastructure and the automerge switch as separate patches from this > one. It was never part of this patch. It is something I am thinking about. > > > > This is only cosmetic. Using vim it displays the name of the temporary > > > > file and confusing the user with gitci2.XXXX instead of gitci.XXX is > > > > weird. Even using gitci as basename looks not good to me, but I left it > > > > for now. > > > > > > It boosts the patch size unnecessarily. It shouldn't be called gitci2 > > > anyway... :-) Feel free to change the mktemp templates instead. > > > > I will check what I can do, but I don't really care that much about the > > patch size ;) > > But I do. :-) Sometime you don't have any other choice, because diff is not perfect. Do you wanna apply that patch or should I change the mktemp templates first? > > > The gitci name comes all the way from the times where this command was > > > usually triggered by 'git ci'. > > > > I thought so. Is using cogito.XXXXXX and cogito.temp.XXXXX fine with > > you? > > No. I think it's useful (and doesn't cost us anything) to have the > "owner" of the file denoted in the filename. > > > > > Index: cg-commit > > > > =================================================================== > > > > --- f00d7589973e8ea65d2264f5fbac82e1b217dc8f/cg-commit (mode:100755) > > > > +++ cb61efa8a01400150162af9b0f3773f21d502fe9/cg-commit (mode:100755) > > > > @@ -94,30 +78,55 @@ > > > > echo "$uri" >>$LOGMSG > > > > [ "$msgs" ] && echo "$uri" > > > > done > > > > - echo >>$LOGMSG > > > > +else > > > > + first=1 > > > > fi > > > > -first=1 > > > > + > > > > for msg in "${msgs[@]}"; do > > > > if [ "$first" ]; then > > > > first= > > > > else > > > > echo >>$LOGMSG > > > > fi > > > > - echo $msg | fmt >>$LOGMSG > > > > + echo $msg | fmt -s -w 74 >>$LOGMSG > > > > done > > > > + > > > > +if [ "$first" ]; then > > > > + echo >>$LOGMSG > > > > +fi > > > > > > This mess is still here. > > > > That is not mess. Think about it. If we have messages provided by -m we > > want an empty line between the merge message and the the first commit > > message. And we don't wanna have an extra empty line at the top if you > > provide a commit messages via -m. > > But, that's the current behaviour, isn't it? No it is not, because with my change the messages are at the top and before the CG: lines. Regards Marcel