[PATCH] Update git-multimail to version 1.0.2

[PATCH] Update git-multimail to version 1.0.2

[Michael Haggerty]

The only changes are to the README files, most notably the list of
maintainers and the project URL.

Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
---
 contrib/hooks/multimail/README     | 43 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git |  6 +++---
 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

diff --git a/contrib/hooks/multimail/README b/contrib/hooks/multimail/README
index 477d65f..6efa4ff 100644
--- a/contrib/hooks/multimail/README
+++ b/contrib/hooks/multimail/README
@@ -456,34 +456,35 @@ consider sharing them with the community!
 Getting involved
 ----------------
 
-git-multimail is an open-source project, built by volunteers.  We
-would welcome your help!
+git-multimail is an open-source project, built by volunteers. We would
+welcome your help!
 
-The current maintainer is Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>.
+The current maintainers are Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
+and Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>.
 
-General discussion of git-multimail takes place on the main Git
-mailing list,
+Please note that although a copy of git-multimail is distributed in
+the "contrib" section of the main Git project, development takes place
+in a separate git-multimail repository on GitHub:
 
-    git@vger.kernel.org
+    https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail
 
-Please CC emails regarding git-multimail to me so that I don't
-overlook them.
+Whenever enough changes to git-multimail have accumulated, a new
+code-drop of git-multimail will be submitted for inclusion in the Git
+project.
 
-The git-multimail project itself is currently hosted on GitHub:
+We use the GitHub issue tracker to keep track of bugs and feature
+requests, and we use GitHub pull requests to exchange patches (though,
+if you prefer, you can send patches via the Git mailing list with CC
+to the maintainers). Please sign off your patches as per the Git
+project practice.
 
-    https://github.com/mhagger/git-multimail
+General discussion of git-multimail can take place on the main Git
+mailing list,
 
-We use the GitHub issue tracker to keep track of bugs and feature
-requests, and GitHub pull requests to exchange patches (though, if you
-prefer, you can send patches via the Git mailing list with cc to me).
-Please sign off your patches as per the Git project practice.
-
-Please note that although a copy of git-multimail will probably be
-distributed in the "contrib" section of the main Git project,
-development takes place in the separate git-multimail repository on
-GitHub!  (Whenever enough changes to git-multimail have accumulated, a
-new code-drop of git-multimail will be submitted for inclusion in the
-Git project.)
+    git@vger.kernel.org
+
+Please CC emails regarding git-multimail to the maintainers so that we
+don't overlook them.
 
 
 Footnotes
diff --git a/contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git b/contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git
index 129b771..ab3ece5 100644
--- a/contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git
+++ b/contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git
@@ -3,13 +3,13 @@ section of the Git project as a convenience to Git users.
 git-multimail is developed as an independent project at the following
 website:
 
-    https://github.com/mhagger/git-multimail
+    https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail
 
 The version in this directory was obtained from the upstream project
-on 2014-04-07 and consists of the "git-multimail" subdirectory from
+on 2015-04-27 and consists of the "git-multimail" subdirectory from
 revision
 
-    1b32653bafc4f902535b9fc1cd9cae911325b870
+    8c3aaafa873bf10de8dddf1d202c449b3eff3b42 refs/tags/1.0.2
 
 Please see the README file in this directory for information about how
 to report bugs or contribute to git-multimail.
-- 
2.1.4

Re: [PATCH] Update git-multimail to version 1.0.2

[Matthieu Moy]

Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> The only changes are to the README files, most notably the list of
> maintainers and the project URL.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
> ---
>  contrib/hooks/multimail/README     | 43 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git |  6 +++---
>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

Acked-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Re: [PATCH] Update git-multimail to version 1.0.2

[Junio C Hamano]

Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> The only changes are to the README files, most notably the list of
> maintainers and the project URL.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
> ---
>  contrib/hooks/multimail/README     | 43 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git |  6 +++---
>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> ...

(mental note) OK, only the doc updates; that should be safe even to
apply during -rc freeze period if I wanted to...

> diff --git a/contrib/hooks/multimail/README b/contrib/hooks/multimail/README
> index 477d65f..6efa4ff 100644
> --- a/contrib/hooks/multimail/README
> +++ b/contrib/hooks/multimail/README
> @@ -456,34 +456,35 @@ consider sharing them with the community!
>  Getting involved
>  ----------------
>  
> -git-multimail is an open-source project, built by volunteers.  We
> -would welcome your help!
> +git-multimail is an open-source project, built by volunteers. We would
> +welcome your help!

Yuck.

> +Whenever enough changes to git-multimail have accumulated, a new
> +code-drop of git-multimail will be submitted for inclusion in the Git
> +project.

OK.

> diff --git a/contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git b/contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git
> index 129b771..ab3ece5 100644
> --- a/contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git
> +++ b/contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git
> @@ -3,13 +3,13 @@ section of the Git project as a convenience to Git users.
>  git-multimail is developed as an independent project at the following
>  website:
>  
> -    https://github.com/mhagger/git-multimail
> +    https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail
>  
>  The version in this directory was obtained from the upstream project
> -on 2014-04-07 and consists of the "git-multimail" subdirectory from
> +on 2015-04-27 and consists of the "git-multimail" subdirectory from
>  revision
>  
> -    1b32653bafc4f902535b9fc1cd9cae911325b870
> +    8c3aaafa873bf10de8dddf1d202c449b3eff3b42 refs/tags/1.0.2

Huh, really?

Re: [PATCH] Update git-multimail to version 1.0.2

[Matthieu Moy]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

>> --- a/contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git
>> +++ b/contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git
>> @@ -3,13 +3,13 @@ section of the Git project as a convenience to Git users.
>>  git-multimail is developed as an independent project at the following
>>  website:
>>  
>> -    https://github.com/mhagger/git-multimail
>> +    https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail
>>  
>>  The version in this directory was obtained from the upstream project
>> -on 2014-04-07 and consists of the "git-multimail" subdirectory from
>> +on 2015-04-27 and consists of the "git-multimail" subdirectory from
>>  revision
>>  
>> -    1b32653bafc4f902535b9fc1cd9cae911325b870
>> +    8c3aaafa873bf10de8dddf1d202c449b3eff3b42 refs/tags/1.0.2
>
> Huh, really?

What's the problem with this hunk? I just checked, and the tag is there,
with the right sha1.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Re: [PATCH] Update git-multimail to version 1.0.2

[Junio C Hamano]

Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>>> --- a/contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git
>>> +++ b/contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git
>>> @@ -3,13 +3,13 @@ section of the Git project as a convenience to Git users.
>>>  git-multimail is developed as an independent project at the following
>>>  website:
>>>  
>>> -    https://github.com/mhagger/git-multimail
>>> +    https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail
>>>  
>>>  The version in this directory was obtained from the upstream project
>>> -on 2014-04-07 and consists of the "git-multimail" subdirectory from
>>> +on 2015-04-27 and consists of the "git-multimail" subdirectory from
>>>  revision
>>>  
>>> -    1b32653bafc4f902535b9fc1cd9cae911325b870
>>> +    8c3aaafa873bf10de8dddf1d202c449b3eff3b42 refs/tags/1.0.2
>>
>> Huh, really?
>
> What's the problem with this hunk? I just checked, and the tag is there,
> with the right sha1.

The patch is to apply to a file in my tree, so "The version in this
directory" is "contrib/hooks/multimail/git_multimail.py" in my tree.

Was that obtained from the upstream project (i.e. you) and match
your 1.0.2 tag?

$ git rev-list -1 master contrib/hooks/multimail/
b513f71f6043c05c3918e670b332dfa7ec6b2661

which is b513f71f (git-multimail: update to version 1.0.0,
2014-04-07)

Re: [PATCH] Update git-multimail to version 1.0.2

[Matthieu Moy]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
>
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>>> --- a/contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git
>>>> +++ b/contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git
>>>> @@ -3,13 +3,13 @@ section of the Git project as a convenience to Git users.
>>>>  git-multimail is developed as an independent project at the following
>>>>  website:
>>>>  
>>>> -    https://github.com/mhagger/git-multimail
>>>> +    https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail
>>>>  
>>>>  The version in this directory was obtained from the upstream project
>>>> -on 2014-04-07 and consists of the "git-multimail" subdirectory from
>>>> +on 2015-04-27 and consists of the "git-multimail" subdirectory from
>>>>  revision
>>>>  
>>>> -    1b32653bafc4f902535b9fc1cd9cae911325b870
>>>> +    8c3aaafa873bf10de8dddf1d202c449b3eff3b42 refs/tags/1.0.2
>>>
>>> Huh, really?
>>
>> What's the problem with this hunk? I just checked, and the tag is there,
>> with the right sha1.
>
> The patch is to apply to a file in my tree, so "The version in this
> directory" is "contrib/hooks/multimail/git_multimail.py" in my tree.
>
> Was that obtained from the upstream project (i.e. you) and match
> your 1.0.2 tag?

Yes. Isn't that what the text above says?

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Re: [PATCH] Update git-multimail to version 1.0.2

[Junio C Hamano]

Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
>>
>>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> --- a/contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git
>>>>> +++ b/contrib/hooks/multimail/README.Git
>>>>> @@ -3,13 +3,13 @@ section of the Git project as a convenience to Git users.
>>>>>  git-multimail is developed as an independent project at the following
>>>>>  website:
>>>>>  
>>>>> -    https://github.com/mhagger/git-multimail
>>>>> +    https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail
>>>>>  
>>>>>  The version in this directory was obtained from the upstream project
>>>>> -on 2014-04-07 and consists of the "git-multimail" subdirectory from
>>>>> +on 2015-04-27 and consists of the "git-multimail" subdirectory from
>>>>>  revision
>>>>>  
>>>>> -    1b32653bafc4f902535b9fc1cd9cae911325b870
>>>>> +    8c3aaafa873bf10de8dddf1d202c449b3eff3b42 refs/tags/1.0.2
>>>>
>>>> Huh, really?
>>>
>>> What's the problem with this hunk? I just checked, and the tag is there,
>>> with the right sha1.
>>
>> The patch is to apply to a file in my tree, so "The version in this
>> directory" is "contrib/hooks/multimail/git_multimail.py" in my tree.
>>
>> Was that obtained from the upstream project (i.e. you) and match
>> your 1.0.2 tag?
>
> Yes. Isn't that what the text above says?

Well, the patch does not update git_multimail.py at all.  Requoting
the part you omitted from my response

    $ git rev-list -1 master contrib/hooks/multimail/
    b513f71f6043c05c3918e670b332dfa7ec6b2661

    which is b513f71f (git-multimail: update to version 1.0.0,
    2014-04-07)

it matches what "was obtained from the upstream project on
2014-04-07".

Or did you forget to include the update to the software in the
patch?

Re: [PATCH] Update git-multimail to version 1.0.2

[Matthieu Moy]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
>
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>> Was that obtained from the upstream project (i.e. you) and match
>>> your 1.0.2 tag?
>>
>> Yes. Isn't that what the text above says?
>
> Well, the patch does not update git_multimail.py at all.  Requoting
> the part you omitted from my response
>
>     $ git rev-list -1 master contrib/hooks/multimail/
>     b513f71f6043c05c3918e670b332dfa7ec6b2661
>
>     which is b513f71f (git-multimail: update to version 1.0.0,
>     2014-04-07)
>
> it matches what "was obtained from the upstream project on
> 2014-04-07".

Yes, but it also matches "was obtained on 2015-04-27", since only the
README has changed (the commit message of this patch says: "The only
changes are to the README files, most notably the list of maintainers
and the project URL.").

> Or did you forget to include the update to the software in the
> patch?

The update to the software is empty.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Re: [PATCH] Update git-multimail to version 1.0.2

[Junio C Hamano]

Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
>>
>>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Was that obtained from the upstream project (i.e. you) and match
>>>> your 1.0.2 tag?
>>>
>>> Yes. Isn't that what the text above says?
>>
>> Well, the patch does not update git_multimail.py at all.  Requoting
>> the part you omitted from my response
>>
>>     $ git rev-list -1 master contrib/hooks/multimail/
>>     b513f71f6043c05c3918e670b332dfa7ec6b2661
>>
>>     which is b513f71f (git-multimail: update to version 1.0.0,
>>     2014-04-07)
>>
>> it matches what "was obtained from the upstream project on
>> 2014-04-07".
>
> Yes, but it also matches "was obtained on 2015-04-27", since only the
> README has changed (the commit message of this patch says: "The only
> changes are to the README files, most notably the list of maintainers
> and the project URL.").
>
>> Or did you forget to include the update to the software in the
>> patch?
>
> The update to the software is empty.

Hmm, that may be technically correct but it is grossly misleading to
update the existing "was obtained on 2014-04-07" to "was obtained on
2015-04-27", especially if nothing was actually obtained, isn't it?
I honestly am surprised that, after seeing the announcement about "a
new repository, co-maintainer and multiple contributors", no code
change is made over the past 12 months.

I would understand it if the description were "The version in this
directory matches the upstream project as of 2015-04-27", though.

Re: [PATCH] Update git-multimail to version 1.0.2

[Matthieu Moy]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Hmm, that may be technically correct but it is grossly misleading to
> update the existing "was obtained on 2014-04-07" to "was obtained on
> 2015-04-27", especially if nothing was actually obtained, isn't it?

That is because you're looking at the patch. The intended audience are
people reading the README.Git file, and the text reads just fine then.

> I honestly am surprised that, after seeing the announcement about "a
> new repository, co-maintainer and multiple contributors", no code
> change is made over the past 12 months.

That is the point indeed. Michael does not use git-multimail himself,
and does not find time to work on it. I'm joining the effort, but
currently have no time either. But eventually I'll go through the list
of pending pull-requests, and we'll actually get new code.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Re: [PATCH] Update git-multimail to version 1.0.2

[Michael Haggerty]

On 04/27/2015 09:05 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
> 
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> Well, the patch does not update git_multimail.py at all.  Requoting
>>> the part you omitted from my response
>>>
>>>     $ git rev-list -1 master contrib/hooks/multimail/
>>>     b513f71f6043c05c3918e670b332dfa7ec6b2661
>>>
>>>     which is b513f71f (git-multimail: update to version 1.0.0,
>>>     2014-04-07)
>>>
>>> it matches what "was obtained from the upstream project on
>>> 2014-04-07".
>>
>> Yes, but it also matches "was obtained on 2015-04-27", since only the
>> README has changed (the commit message of this patch says: "The only
>> changes are to the README files, most notably the list of maintainers
>> and the project URL.").
>>
>>> Or did you forget to include the update to the software in the
>>> patch?
>>
>> The update to the software is empty.
> 
> Hmm, that may be technically correct but it is grossly misleading to
> update the existing "was obtained on 2014-04-07" to "was obtained on
> 2015-04-27", especially if nothing was actually obtained, isn't it?

I'm sorry to have caused confusion. Matthieu, your explanations have
been exactly correct. Let me just add a couple of details:

Junio, you asked me (off-list) for an update to README and README.Git.
Those two files come from the git-multimail repo, as
git-multimail/README and git-multimail/README.Git.template,
respectively, so I modified the files in our repo then submitted the
corresponding patch to your repo.

It's true that only documentation changes are in the patch, but it still
seemed like good practice to create a tag and all that. If nothing else,
it will make it easier to figure out the baseline for future code drops.

There have been a couple of small software changes in git-multimail's
master branch, but I didn't include those in the patch I submitted to
you because I thought you wouldn't want to have code changes so close to
the release. So 1.0.2 is on the newly-created "maint" branch.

> I honestly am surprised that, after seeing the announcement about "a
> new repository, co-maintainer and multiple contributors", no code
> change is made over the past 12 months.

I totally understand your disappointment. Mea culpa. That, in fact, is
WHY I'm so happy that Matthieu has agreed to help maintain the project.
If it's any consolation, none of the user feedback that I have been so
remiss in addressing involves serious or security-related bugs.

> I would understand it if the description were "The version in this
> directory matches the upstream project as of 2015-04-27", though.

I think of the contents of contrib/hooks/multimail as a whole, so even
if the software hasn't changed, updated documentation *has* been
"obtained" from upstream. But feel free to adjust the text in whatever
way you like.

Michael

-- 
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu

Re: [PATCH] Update git-multimail to version 1.0.2

[Junio C Hamano]

Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> On 04/27/2015 09:05 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> ...
>> Hmm, that may be technically correct but it is grossly misleading to
>> update the existing "was obtained on 2014-04-07" to "was obtained on
>> 2015-04-27", especially if nothing was actually obtained, isn't it?
> ...
> It's true that only documentation changes are in the patch, but it still
> seemed like good practice to create a tag and all that. If nothing else,
> it will make it easier to figure out the baseline for future code drops.

Oh, there is no question about that ;-)

> There have been a couple of small software changes in git-multimail's
> master branch, but I didn't include those in the patch I submitted to
> you because I thought you wouldn't want to have code changes so close to
> the release. So 1.0.2 is on the newly-created "maint" branch.

OK.

>> I honestly am surprised that, after seeing the announcement about "a
>> new repository, co-maintainer and multiple contributors", no code
>> change is made over the past 12 months.
>
> I totally understand your disappointment. Mea culpa.

I am not *disappointed* at all.  No recent changes do not
automatically mean abandoned software---it may be a sign of
stability.  I was just *surprised*.

After all, 1.0.2 tag will hopefully soon become stale, and people
have to go to the upstream to see what the latest version is called
anyway, instead of looking at my tree.  So the primary value of
having a copy in my tree is (1) to have the URL for the true
upstream and (2) to have a working version that is not too stale.
So from that point of view, a patch without the update to the
version numbers or datestamps, i.e. just changes the URLs and
updates who to contact, would have been more truthful, unless it
also updated the code.

It was just that the update changed "the last obtained date" without
changing anything of substance that was "obtained" (because there
wasn't anything new to be obtained) and that looked unexpected and
surprised me.  That's all.