From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael J Gruber Subject: Re: Idea: "git format-patch" should get more information out of git Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:21:13 +0200 Message-ID: <4E5CD5B9.80306@drmicha.warpmail.net> References: <4E587CC0.4090508@alum.mit.edu> <7vippiaduw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v1uw69h96.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110829185546.GD756@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , Michael Haggerty , git@vger.kernel.org, Johan Herland , Jonathan Nieder To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 30 14:21:26 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QyNJj-0006kc-Pf for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:21:24 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752914Ab1H3MVS (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:21:18 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:35822 "EHLO out2.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751273Ab1H3MVR (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:21:17 -0400 Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.46]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEA3420C91; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:21:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:21:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=3/jnivdLfl1JHY+YKRWWN3 F3oiw=; b=gsZbDAGLbPrbL0oRBT3aJgGyJ2z0FMQvcvf2/YGV8vRj0NqJJshSVW 2JUJa04yFxKHN4AUZVeu0YcKF9JomP2PMInx8VE03hK+WEHbFe4XauUx9mMJRYYN A/T2zV7s2yEZgxFKREHimWj4ibnQVca759zylj48d/EsCrZ3XOZyA= X-Sasl-enc: dqcXZgMiwgFhsTMKN2suwgD215q4nq8qqcQrxE0BCyeL 1314706876 Received: from localhost.localdomain (whitehead.math.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.44.62]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0113BB20321; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:21:15 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110816 Thunderbird/6.0 In-Reply-To: <20110829185546.GD756@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 29.08.2011 20:55: > On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 11:34:13PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Junio C Hamano writes: >> >>> Michael Haggerty writes: >>> >>>> 4. There is no place to store the "additional information" (the part >>>> that comes in patch emails between the "---" and the diffstat) while >>>> working on the patch series;... >>> >>> I thought there was a RFC floating around to do this using notes and also >>> teach it to "commit -e" a few months ago? I vaguelly recall that Peff and >>> one of the J's were involved, so I am CC'ing them. >> >> Also, when I prepare a commit to be sent with an additional piece of >> information, I often write "---" and the additional message after my >> S-o-b: line while preparing the commit log message. Unlike format-patch >> that strips that off, commit keeps it, which is handy. > > After playing around a bit with my earlier series, I made the > realization (perhaps obvious to others :) ), that if you are in a > pure-patch workflow, keeping the "---" in your commit message locally is > much simpler. It follows the commit around through rebases > automatically, it gets put into format-patch output automatically, and > so forth. I'm confused: Does format-patch keep it or strip it as you say above? Anyways, notes survive rebase etc., and at format-patch time you can decide whether you want to include them or not (with my patch). > The only real downside is that you can never tell git "don't show me the > cover letter cruft". Which is probably OK for your own local patches. You can with notes... > But the point of the "---" is that information should never make it into > a repo, which means in any workflow that involves pulling actual git > commits, it won't work (after reading Michael's response in another > thread, though, I think he would be interested in a hybrid > pull-or-apply-via-mail system). The only difficulty would be sharing notes in a push-pull workflow (for lack of tool support, though we do have merge support). Cheers, Michael