Re: [RFC PATCH] commit -v: strip diffs and submodule shortlogs from the commit message

[Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>]

Am 17.11.2013 10:09, schrieb Jeff King:
> 
>> diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c
>> index 6ab4605..091a6e7 100644
>> --- a/builtin/commit.c
>> +++ b/builtin/commit.c
>> @@ -1602,9 +1602,9 @@ int cmd_commit(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>>
>>  	/* Truncate the message just before the diff, if any. */
>>  	if (verbose) {
>> -		p = strstr(sb.buf, "\ndiff --git ");
>> -		if (p != NULL)
>> -			strbuf_setlen(&sb, p - sb.buf + 1);
>> +		p = strstr(sb.buf, wt_status_diff_divider);
>> +		if ((p != NULL) && (p > sb.buf) && (p[-1] == '\n'))
>> +			strbuf_setlen(&sb, p - sb.buf);
> 
> I think your check for a preceding newline is too strict. If I delete
> everything before the scissor line (e.g., because I am trying to abort
> the commit), we should still remove the diff. With your patch, we do
> not, and a commit message consisting solely of the diff.
> 
> So I think you want:
> 
>   if (p && (p == sb.buf || p[-1] == '\n'))

Thanks for catching this, will do so in v2.

>> +	fprintf(s->fp, _("# The diff below will be removed when keeping the previous line.\n"));
> 
> I found this hard to parse, I think because of the "keeping" (why would
> I not keep it?), and because you are talking about lines above and
> below. It is not as accurate to say:
> 
>   # ------------------ >8 --------------------
>   # Everything below this line will be removed.
> 
> because it is technically the line above that is the cutoff. But I think
> the meaning is clear, and it is simpler to parse.

Ok.

> I do think it would be simpler with a single line. I know handling the
> i18n was a question there, but I think we should be fine as long as we
> check for the exact bytes we wrote. Surely gettext can do something
> like:
> 
>   magic = _("# Everything below this line will be removed");
>   fprintf(fh, "%s", magic);
>   ...
>   p = strstr(magic);
> 
> I don't know what guarantees on string lifetime gettext gives us, but
> the worst case is that we simply strdup the result.
> 
> I suppose it's possible that the translated string could have utf8 with
> multiple representations, and the user's editor normalizes the text in a
> different way than we wrote it when it saves the result. I don't know if
> that is worth caring about or not; it seems kind of insane.

I don't have any strong feelings about this one. I'd be fine with
dropping the scissor line and taking the translated string as divider
line. What do others think?