Re: [RFC] Patches exchange is bad?

Re: [RFC] Patches exchange is bad?

[Marco Costalba]

Junio C Hamano wrote:

>
>I would like to know a bit about "git format-patch" adding extra
>info that you needed to get rid of.  It shouldn't be necessary.
>

As example, in the rev d5a63b99835017d2638e55a7e34a35a3c1e80f1f from git
the original subject is:

'   Alternate object pool mechanism updates.'

while, after the round-trip git-format-patch + git applymbox I have

'   [PATCH] Alternate object pool mechanism updates.'

The extra '[PATCH]' in the subject was introduced by git-format-patch --mbox.


Perpahs I have made something wrong.


Marco



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 

[PATCH] git-format-patch fix

[Junio C Hamano]

Introduces --keep-subjects flag to tell it not to munge the
first line of the commit message.  Running "git applymbox" on
the output from "git format-patch -m -k" would preserve the
original commit information better this way.

At the same time, prefix Subject: on the first line of the
commit, to help people cut&copy.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
---

Marco Costalba <mcostalba@yahoo.it> writes:

> The extra '[PATCH]' in the subject was introduced by git-format-patch --mbox.
> Perhaps I have made something wrong.

No, sorry, I noticed that myself after I wrote that message.
There should be an option to tell --mbox format not do that.  My
thinko. 

Adding [PATCH] on the subject line even in --mbox format should
also be supported for people who run "git send-email" to send
things out.  So there is a new option '-k' to keep the original
subject line for the "cherry-pick" operation.

This also changes it to always prefix "Subject: ".  I think it
makes the output look consistent, even without --mbox option,
and would help people cutting and pasting the Subject line,
depending on their MUAs (it would certainly help me), but at the
same time it may make cutting and pasting cumbersome for some
other people.  Opinions?  Objections?

------------

 git-format-patch-script |   31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

32128d94ab63ea65bb86cb7fa7425e51e0dfeeb0
diff --git a/git-format-patch-script b/git-format-patch-script
--- a/git-format-patch-script
+++ b/git-format-patch-script
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 . git-sh-setup-script || die "Not a git archive."
 
 usage () {
-    echo >&2 "usage: $0"' [-n] [-o dir] [--mbox] [--check] [--signoff] [-<diff options>...] upstream [ our-head ]
+    echo >&2 "usage: $0"' [-n] [-o dir] [--keep-subject] [--mbox] [--check] [--signoff] [-<diff options>...] upstream [ our-head ]
 
 Prepare each commit with its patch since our-head forked from upstream,
 one file per patch, for e-mail submission.  Each output file is
@@ -44,6 +44,9 @@ do
     date=t ;;
     -m|--m|--mb|--mbo|--mbox)
     date=t author=t mbox=t ;;
+    -k|--k|--ke|--kee|--keep|--keep-|--keep-s|--keep-su|--keep-sub|\
+    --keep-subj|--keep-subje|--keep-subjec|--keep-subject)
+    keep_subject=t ;;
     -n|--n|--nu|--num|--numb|--numbe|--number|--numbere|--numbered)
     numbered=t ;;
     -s|--s|--si|--sig|--sign|--signo|--signof|--signoff)
@@ -64,6 +67,11 @@ do
     shift
 done
 
+case "$keep_subject$numbered" in
+tt)
+	die '--keep-subject and --numbered are incompatible.' ;;
+esac
+
 revpair=
 case "$#" in
 2)
@@ -142,21 +150,22 @@ do
     {
 	mailScript='
 	/./d
-	/^$/n
-	s|^\[PATCH[^]]*\] *||'
-
-	case "$mbox" in
-	t)
-	    echo 'From nobody Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001' ;# UNIX "From" line
-	    mailScript="$mailScript"'
-	    s|^|Subject: [PATCH'"$num"'] |'
-	    ;;
+	/^$/n'
+	case "$keep_subject" in
+	t)  ;;
 	*)
 	    mailScript="$mailScript"'
+	    s|^\[PATCH[^]]*\] *||
 	    s|^|[PATCH'"$num"'] |'
 	    ;;
 	esac
-
+	mailScript="$mailScript"'
+	s|^|Subject: |'
+	case "$mbox" in
+	t)
+	    echo 'From nobody Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001' ;# UNIX "From" line
+	    ;;
+	esac
 	eval "$(sed -ne "$whosepatchScript" $commsg)"
 	test "$author,$au" = ",$me" || {
 		mailScript="$mailScript"'

[PATCH] Teach applymbox to keep the Subject: line.

[Junio C Hamano]

This is a companion patch to the previous format-patch fix.
With "-k", format-patch can be told not to remove the [PATCH] in
the original commit, nor to add the [PATCH] on its own.

However, applymbox toolchain has a code to remove [PATCH] (among
other things) from the Subject: line, which is the right thing
to do when dealing with real e-mailed patches, but it interferes
with the "format-patch to applymbox" cherry-picking.  The -k
flag disables this.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
---

 tools/git-applymbox  |   11 ++++++++---
 tools/git-applypatch |    5 ++++-
 tools/mailinfo.c     |   15 +++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

6bff6a60680ef402f614abae8189c2cb198cfa49
diff --git a/tools/git-applymbox b/tools/git-applymbox
--- a/tools/git-applymbox
+++ b/tools/git-applymbox
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
 ## You give it a mbox-format collection of emails, and it will try to
 ## apply them to the kernel using "applypatch"
 ##
-## applymbox [ -q ] (-c .dotest/msg-number | mail_archive) [Signoff_file]"
+## applymbox [ -k ] [ -q ] (-c .dotest/msg-number | mail_archive) [Signoff_file]"
 ##
 ## The patch application may fail in the middle.  In which case:
 ## (1) look at .dotest/patch and fix it up to apply
@@ -18,10 +18,11 @@
 ## use a Signoff_file, because applypatch wants to append the sign-off
 ## message to msg-clean every time it is run.
 
-query_apply= continue= resume=t
+keep_subject= query_apply= continue= resume=t
 while case "$#" in 0) break ;; esac
 do
 	case "$1" in
+	-k)	keep_subject=-k ;;
 	-q)	query_apply=t ;;
 	-c)	continue="$2"; resume=f; shift ;;
 	-*)	usage ;;
@@ -41,6 +42,9 @@ esac
 case "$query_apply" in
 t)	touch .dotest/.query_apply
 esac
+case "$keep_subject" in
+-k)	: >.dotest/.keep_subject
+esac
 
 signoff="$1"
 set x .dotest/0*
@@ -52,7 +56,8 @@ do
     f,$i)	resume=t;;
     f,*)	continue;;
     *)
-	    git-mailinfo .dotest/msg .dotest/patch <$i >.dotest/info || exit 1
+	    git-mailinfo $keep_subject \
+		.dotest/msg .dotest/patch <$i >.dotest/info || exit 1
 	    git-stripspace < .dotest/msg > .dotest/msg-clean
 	    ;;
     esac
diff --git a/tools/git-applypatch b/tools/git-applypatch
--- a/tools/git-applypatch
+++ b/tools/git-applypatch
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ final=.dotest/final-commit
 ## If this file exists, we ask before applying
 ##
 query_apply=.dotest/.query_apply
+keep_subject=.dotest/.keep_subject
 MSGFILE=$1
 PATCHFILE=$2
 INFO=$3
@@ -30,8 +31,10 @@ export SUBJECT="$(sed -n '/^Subject/ s/S
 if [ -n "$signoff" -a -f "$signoff" ]; then
 	cat $signoff >> $MSGFILE
 fi
+patch_header=
+test -f "$keep_subject" || patch_header='[PATCH] '
 
-(echo "[PATCH] $SUBJECT" ; if [ -s $MSGFILE ]; then echo ; cat $MSGFILE; fi ) > $final
+(echo "$patch_header$SUBJECT" ; if [ -s $MSGFILE ]; then echo ; cat $MSGFILE; fi ) > $final
 
 f=0
 [ -f $query_apply ] || f=1
diff --git a/tools/mailinfo.c b/tools/mailinfo.c
--- a/tools/mailinfo.c
+++ b/tools/mailinfo.c
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
 
 static FILE *cmitmsg, *patchfile;
 
+static int keep_subject = 0;
 static char line[1000];
 static char date[1000];
 static char name[1000];
@@ -101,6 +102,8 @@ static void check_line(char *line, int l
 
 static char * cleanup_subject(char *subject)
 {
+	if (keep_subject)
+		return subject;
 	for (;;) {
 		char *p;
 		int len, remove;
@@ -242,8 +245,20 @@ static void usage(void)
 	exit(1);
 }
 
+static const char mailinfo_usage[] =
+"git-mailinfo [-k] msg patch <mail >info";
 int main(int argc, char ** argv)
 {
+	while (1 < argc && argv[1][0] == '-') {
+		if (!strcmp(argv[1], "-k"))
+			keep_subject = 1;
+		else {
+			fprintf(stderr, "usage: %s\n", mailinfo_usage);
+			exit(1);
+		}
+		argc--; argv++;
+	}
+
 	if (argc != 3)
 		usage();
 	cmitmsg = fopen(argv[1], "w");

Re: [PATCH] Teach applymbox to keep the Subject: line.

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> This is a companion patch to the previous format-patch fix.
> With "-k", format-patch can be told not to remove the [PATCH] in
> the original commit, nor to add the [PATCH] on its own.

I think this might be the point in time to just make the "[PATCH]" prefix 
go away.

It made much more sense with BK than it does with git: since git keeps 
track of "author" and "committer" separately, you can always see when the 
committer wasn't the author of the change, which is what the "[PATCH]" 
thing was all about. 

In other words, at least for the kernel, [PATCH] was a marker that said 
"the author didn't commit this directly". Git already has that information 
explicitly in the git data.

(Also, with proper "Signed-off-by:" lines it's also always clear that 
there were other people involved, and that the author of the patch is 
different from the person who applied it).

So I would personally not mind if we just made the "[PATCH]" prefix go 
away entirely, or perhaps had a separate flag to "git-applymbox" that told 
it to prepend a specific prefix to the Subject: line (which might not be 
"[PATCH] " at all) defaulting to "no prefix".

			Linus

PS. Another historical reason for marking patches explicitly was that
people were worried that introducing BK would somehow make the old
patch-based submissions be "second-class citizens". It was easy to make
statistics and show that at least half the real changes (as opposed to
merges) were still patch-based. So again, the "PATCH" marker had some 
historical relevance, but I don't think it matters any more.

Re: [PATCH] Teach applymbox to keep the Subject: line.

[Sam Ravnborg]

> (Also, with proper "Signed-off-by:" lines it's also always clear that 
> there were other people involved, and that the author of the patch is 
> different from the person who applied it).

I almost always handedit my mails and I find myself forgetting to add
"Signed-off-by" from time to time.
Is there a simple way to implment a trigger that can check that _I_
signed off the patch before applying it?

I prefer to add it myself rather than to have it added automatically -
but mayve thats you me being a bit mistrusting.

Btw. I'm a Cogito user if that makes a difference.
The only git- command I use today is git-applymbox.

	Sam

Re: [PATCH] Teach applymbox to keep the Subject: line.

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> 
> I almost always handedit my mails and I find myself forgetting to add
> "Signed-off-by" from time to time.
> Is there a simple way to implment a trigger that can check that _I_
> signed off the patch before applying it?

Well, Junio has been talking about adding commit hooks. I don't think
that's been done. The idea being that you could verify that the thing 
you're committing follows certain rules (no bad whitespace added in the 
diff, sign-offs in the messages, whatever).

That said, git-applypatch (which is what git-applymbox ends up calling) 
does not use the general "git commit" script. So it would have to have its 
own hook. The script is pretty easy to read, though: just look at 
git-applypatch, and notice that the last stages are:

	...
	git-apply --index $PATCHFILE || exit 1
	tree=$(git-write-tree) || exit 1
	echo Wrote tree $tree
	commit=$(git-commit-tree $tree -p $(cat .git/HEAD) < $final) || exit 1
	echo Committed: $commit
	echo $commit > .git/HEAD

and that just before this thing you could easily add some sanity checking 
by hand. The commit message at that point is in the "$final" file, and the 
patch is obviously in $PATCHFILE, so you can verify either of those to 
your hearts content.

The only question is what the hook/trigger should look like. just put
something like

	[ -x .git/hooks/applypatch-hook ] &&
	     .git/hooks/applypatch-hook "$tree" "$PATCHFILE" || exit

at the line before that "git-apply" perhaps? Then, you could install your 
own applypatch hook which looks at the message or the patch?

		Linus

Re: [PATCH] Teach applymbox to keep the Subject: line.

[Junio C Hamano]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

> Well, Junio has been talking about adding commit hooks. I don't think
> that's been done.

No, notyet.  But tonight.

> The only question is what the hook/trigger should look like. just put
> something like
>
> 	[ -x .git/hooks/applypatch-hook ] &&
> 	     .git/hooks/applypatch-hook "$tree" "$PATCHFILE" || exit
>
> at the line before that "git-apply" perhaps? Then, you could install your 
> own applypatch hook which looks at the message or the patch?

Sounds sensible.  The hook would probably want a handy access to
the commit object as well to catch:

     - the author name may be spelled wrong or has funky
       B-encodings still left.

     - some people might want to even run spellchecker on the
       commit message.

     - lack of S-O-B line.

[PATCH] Add hooks to tools/git-applypatch.

[Junio C Hamano]

This teachs git-applypatch, which is used from git-applymbox, three
hooks, similar to what git-commit-script uses.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>

---

    This is still in the proposed updates branch, along with the
    hooks for "git commit".  Are people comfortable with the
    three-hook arrangements these two commands use?

 templates/hooks--applypatch-msg |   14 ++++++
 templates/hooks--pre-applypatch |   14 ++++++
 tools/git-applypatch            |   87 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 3 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 templates/hooks--applypatch-msg
 create mode 100644 templates/hooks--pre-applypatch

b5df0d94bf045627e74cf7faef3f51ce5e567aa4
diff --git a/templates/hooks--applypatch-msg b/templates/hooks--applypatch-msg
new file mode 100644
--- /dev/null
+++ b/templates/hooks--applypatch-msg
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+#
+# An example hook script to check the commit log message taken by
+# applypatch from an e-mail message.
+#
+# The hook should exit with non-zero status after issuing an
+# appropriate message if it wants to stop the commit.  The hook is
+# allowed to edit the commit message file.
+#
+# To enable this hook, make this file executable.
+
+test -x "$GIT_DIR/hooks/commit-msg" &&
+	exec "$GIT_DIR/hooks/commit-msg" ${1+"$@"}
+:
diff --git a/templates/hooks--pre-applypatch b/templates/hooks--pre-applypatch
new file mode 100644
--- /dev/null
+++ b/templates/hooks--pre-applypatch
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+#
+# An example hook script to verify what is about to be committed
+# by applypatch from an e-mail message.
+#
+# The hook should exit with non-zero status after issuing an
+# appropriate message if it wants to stop the commit.
+#
+# To enable this hook, make this file executable.
+
+test -x "$GIT_DIR/hooks/pre-commit" &&
+	exec "$GIT_DIR/hooks/pre-commit" ${1+"$@"}
+:
+
diff --git a/tools/git-applypatch b/tools/git-applypatch
--- a/tools/git-applypatch
+++ b/tools/git-applypatch
@@ -10,58 +10,109 @@
 ##	$3 - "info" file with Author, email and subject
 ##	$4 - optional file containing signoff to add
 ##
-signoff="$4"
+. git-sh-setup-script || die "Not a git archive."
+
 final=.dotest/final-commit
 ##
 ## If this file exists, we ask before applying
 ##
 query_apply=.dotest/.query_apply
+
+## We do not munge the first line of the commit message too much
+## if this file exists.
 keep_subject=.dotest/.keep_subject
+
+
 MSGFILE=$1
 PATCHFILE=$2
 INFO=$3
-EDIT=${VISUAL:-$EDITOR}
-EDIT=${EDIT:-vi}
+SIGNOFF=$4
+EDIT=${VISUAL:-${EDITOR:-vi}}
 
 export GIT_AUTHOR_NAME="$(sed -n '/^Author/ s/Author: //p' .dotest/info)"
 export GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL="$(sed -n '/^Email/ s/Email: //p' .dotest/info)"
 export GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="$(sed -n '/^Date/ s/Date: //p' .dotest/info)"
 export SUBJECT="$(sed -n '/^Subject/ s/Subject: //p' .dotest/info)"
 
-if [ -n "$signoff" -a -f "$signoff" ]; then
-	cat $signoff >> $MSGFILE
+if test '' != "$SIGNOFF"
+then
+	if test -f "$SIGNOFF"
+	then
+		SIGNOFF=`cat "$SIGNOFF"` || exit
+	elif case "$SIGNOFF" in yes | true | me | please) : ;; *) false ;; esac
+	then
+		SIGNOFF=`git-var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT | sed -e '
+				s/>.*/>/
+				s/^/Signed-off-by: /'
+		`
+	else
+		SIGNOFF=
+	fi
+	if test '' != "$SIGNOFF"
+	then
+		LAST_SIGNED_OFF_BY=`
+			sed -ne '/^Signed-off-by: /p' "$MSGFILE" |
+			tail -n 1
+		`
+		test "$LAST_SIGNED_OFF_BY" = "$SIGNOFF" ||
+		echo "$SIGNOFF" >>"$MSGFILE"
+	fi
 fi
+
 patch_header=
 test -f "$keep_subject" || patch_header='[PATCH] '
 
-(echo "$patch_header$SUBJECT" ; if [ -s $MSGFILE ]; then echo ; cat $MSGFILE; fi ) > $final
+{
+	echo "$patch_header$SUBJECT"
+	if test -s "$MSGFILE"
+	then
+		echo
+		cat "$MSGFILE"
+	fi
+} >"$final"
 
-f=0
-[ -f $query_apply ] || f=1
+interactive=yes
+test -f "$query_apply" || interactive=no
 
-while [ $f -eq 0 ]; do
+while [ "$interactive" = yes ]; do
 	echo "Commit Body is:"
 	echo "--------------------------"
-	cat $final
+	cat "$final"
 	echo "--------------------------"
 	echo -n "Apply? [y]es/[n]o/[e]dit/[a]ccept all "
 	read reply
-	case $reply in
-		y|Y) f=1;;
+	case "$reply" in
+		y|Y) interactive=no;;
 		n|N) exit 2;;	# special value to tell dotest to keep going
-		e|E) $EDIT $final;;
-		a|A) rm -f $query_apply
-		     f=1;;
+		e|E) "$EDIT" "$final";;
+		a|A) rm -f "$query_apply"
+		     interactive=no ;;
 	esac
 done
 
+if test -x "$GIT_DIR"/hooks/applypatch-msg
+then
+	"$GIT_DIR"/hooks/applypatch-msg "$final" || exit
+fi
+
 echo
 echo Applying "'$SUBJECT'"
 echo
 
-git-apply --index $PATCHFILE || exit 1
+git-apply --index "$PATCHFILE" || exit 1
+
+if test -x "$GIT_DIR"/hooks/pre-applypatch
+then
+	"$GIT_DIR"/hooks/pre-applypatch || exit
+fi
+
 tree=$(git-write-tree) || exit 1
 echo Wrote tree $tree
-commit=$(git-commit-tree $tree -p $(cat .git/HEAD) < $final) || exit 1
+commit=$(git-commit-tree $tree -p $(cat "$GIT_DIR"/HEAD) < "$final") || exit 1
 echo Committed: $commit
-echo $commit > .git/HEAD
+echo $commit > "$GIT_DIR"/HEAD
+
+if test -x "$GIT_DIR"/hooks/post-applypatch
+then
+	"$GIT_DIR"/hooks/post-applypatch
+fi

Re: [PATCH] Teach applymbox to keep the Subject: line.

[Junio C Hamano]

Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> writes:

> I prefer to add it myself rather than to have it added automatically -
> but mayve thats you me being a bit mistrusting.
>
> The only git- command I use today is git-applymbox.

If you did not have that "add it myself" preference, I would
have recommended the (not counting the flags) second parameter
to git-applymbox.

While we are on the topic of applymbox, currently it takes this
form:

$ applymbox [ -k ] [ -q ] (-c .dotest/msg_num | mail_archive) [Signoff_file]"

It may make more sense to change it to:

    applymbox [-k] [-q] [-s <signoff>] ( -c .dotest/<msg_num> | <mbox>... )

Re: [PATCH] Teach applymbox to keep the Subject: line.

[Jeff Garzik]

If someone is thus motivated, I have two requests in this area:

1) Fix applymbox such that it understands RFC822-valid Subject lines 
which wrap across multiple text lines.

2) Teach it to understand MIME, and not treat the MIME headers like part 
of the message.

Re: [PATCH] Teach applymbox to keep the Subject: line.

[Junio C Hamano]

Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> writes:

> 1) Fix applymbox such that it understands RFC822-valid Subject lines 
> which wrap across multiple text lines.

I thought I did this in mailinfo (read_one_header() function)
some time ago.  I'd appreciate it if you could point me at a
sample message that fails to get processed correctly.

> 2) Teach it to understand MIME, and not treat the MIME headers like part 
> of the message.

I share the same gripe; I always end up running applymbox -q and
hand-fixing things for this reason.

Re: [PATCH] Teach applymbox to keep the Subject: line.

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> 1) Fix applymbox such that it understands RFC822-valid Subject lines 
> which wrap across multiple text lines.

It already should do this.

> 2) Teach it to understand MIME, and not treat the MIME headers like part 
> of the message.

But this one I really realyl disagree with.

The fact is, anybody who doesn't edit the emails that come in is BROKEN. 
There are two kinds of emails:

 - the nicely formatted ones where the author follows all the rules

   This kind of email doesn't need MIME decoding anyway.

 - the others

   This kind might need MIME decoding, but since it _also_ needs 
   hand-editing to remove all the "Hi, please apply this patch" etc crud
   that inevitably go along with this kind of patch, trying to handle it 
   automatically is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

   And if it's mime-encoded you often have trouble editing it anyway.

Ergo: if somebody sends you mime-encoded patches, hit them with a baseball 
bat (politely) and teach them not to do that. "Fixing" the tools really 
will just make things worse if it means that you apply raw emails without 
having edited them.

		Linus

Re: [PATCH] Teach applymbox to keep the Subject: line.

[Junio C Hamano]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

> The fact is, anybody who doesn't edit the emails that come in is BROKEN. 
> There are two kinds of emails:
>
>  - the nicely formatted ones where the author follows all the rules
>
>    This kind of email doesn't need MIME decoding anyway.

That depends on what the rules are, but I consider detecting B
encodings in the header fields and transliterating it into UTF-8
a good idea (although that sometimes is a lossy conversion
depending on the original charset).

Remember this one that prompted me to do the header folding?

    From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCNUhGIzFRTEAbKEI=?= 
            <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>

>  - the others

>    ..., trying to handle it 
>    automatically is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
>    And if it's mime-encoded you often have trouble editing it anyway.
>
> Ergo: if somebody sends you mime-encoded patches, hit them with a baseball 
> bat (politely) and teach them not to do that. "Fixing" the tools really 
> will just make things worse if it means that you apply raw emails without 
> having edited them.

I agree with you in principle and that is why I always run
applymbox with the -q flag.  Maybe I should start trying the
baseball bat approach to see what happens.

Re: [PATCH] Teach applymbox to keep the Subject: line.

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > 
> > 2) Teach it to understand MIME, and not treat the MIME headers like part 
> > of the message.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Ergo: if somebody sends you mime-encoded patches, hit them with a baseball 
> bat (politely) and teach them not to do that. "Fixing" the tools really 
> will just make things worse if it means that you apply raw emails without 
> having edited them.

I'd say that QP and the MIME/alternate formats are not really the fault of 
the sender, but rather the mailer. So there might be value in supporting 
at least these, to make the life of maintainers easier.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH] Teach applymbox to keep the Subject: line.

[David Kågedal]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> 
>> 1) Fix applymbox such that it understands RFC822-valid Subject lines 
>> which wrap across multiple text lines.
>
> It already should do this.
>
>> 2) Teach it to understand MIME, and not treat the MIME headers like part 
>> of the message.
>
> But this one I really realyl disagree with.
>
> The fact is, anybody who doesn't edit the emails that come in is BROKEN. 
> There are two kinds of emails:
>
>  - the nicely formatted ones where the author follows all the rules
>
>    This kind of email doesn't need MIME decoding anyway.

Unless they want to write something that doesn't fit in ASCII, as
discussed in another thread here.

But maybe you are only talking about MIME attachments, and not about
MIME content encodings?  We probably need to separate the two.

Note that I'm not really talking about your patch handling for Linux;
you are free to disallow my name in Linux patches if you want to.  But
I'd like to see a way to get rid of that limitation for other uses of
git.

-- 
David Kågedal