Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Robert Dailey]

I am attempting to diff a submodule modified in my working copy and
the only difference is a merge commit. However, I do not get the
"full" range of commits introduced by the merge commit when I diff it:

$ git diff --submodule=log Core
Submodule Core 8b4ec60..def2f3b:
  > Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master-ah3k'

However if I go inside my submodule and run `git log` by hand, I get
more information about the TRUE commits introduced:

$ git log --oneline 8b4ec60..def2f3b
def2f3b Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master-ah3k'
015c961 Remove log spam in FontManager
7713ba1 Update third party submodule to latest
10aac78 Merge pull request #9 in FE/core from
feature/FE-1348-selecting-continue-on-zero-balance to master-ah3k
287882f FE-1376 Nedd to remain in check detail screen when selecting
donation after SBI
a5a6bed Do not overwrite the current check# within loop
dfb8547 Adding list of checks to CRspChecks before saving
1be280a FE-1354: Guest logged out in specific multiple check scenario
de06d5a [FE-1348] Fix PATT exit while checks still open

It's almost as if the `git diff --submodule=log` approach is passing
in --first-parent to git log, which would exclude commits in the range
that I'm seeing when I run git log manually.

Is this by design? Is there a way to enable the full log history with
`git diff` on a submodule?

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Heiko Voigt]

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:53:11PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
> I am attempting to diff a submodule modified in my working copy and
> the only difference is a merge commit. However, I do not get the
> "full" range of commits introduced by the merge commit when I diff it:
> 
> $ git diff --submodule=log Core
> Submodule Core 8b4ec60..def2f3b:
>   > Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master-ah3k'
> 
> However if I go inside my submodule and run `git log` by hand, I get
> more information about the TRUE commits introduced:
> 
> $ git log --oneline 8b4ec60..def2f3b
> def2f3b Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master-ah3k'
> 015c961 Remove log spam in FontManager
> 7713ba1 Update third party submodule to latest
> 10aac78 Merge pull request #9 in FE/core from
> feature/FE-1348-selecting-continue-on-zero-balance to master-ah3k
> 287882f FE-1376 Nedd to remain in check detail screen when selecting
> donation after SBI
> a5a6bed Do not overwrite the current check# within loop
> dfb8547 Adding list of checks to CRspChecks before saving
> 1be280a FE-1354: Guest logged out in specific multiple check scenario
> de06d5a [FE-1348] Fix PATT exit while checks still open
> 
> It's almost as if the `git diff --submodule=log` approach is passing
> in --first-parent to git log, which would exclude commits in the range
> that I'm seeing when I run git log manually.

That is exactly the case. In prepare_submodule_summary() that option is
set before doing the revision walk.

> Is this by design? Is there a way to enable the full log history with
> `git diff` on a submodule?

This stems from the first implementation for showing submodule diffs in
commit 752c0c24. I guess this was done deliberately to limit the amount
of output you get for a submodule. At the moment this is hardcoded but I
think there is nothing wrong with adding another option to include the
full log.

Cheers Heiko

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Robert Dailey]

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:53:11PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
>> I am attempting to diff a submodule modified in my working copy and
>> the only difference is a merge commit. However, I do not get the
>> "full" range of commits introduced by the merge commit when I diff it:
>>
>> $ git diff --submodule=log Core
>> Submodule Core 8b4ec60..def2f3b:
>>   > Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master-ah3k'
>>
>> However if I go inside my submodule and run `git log` by hand, I get
>> more information about the TRUE commits introduced:
>>
>> $ git log --oneline 8b4ec60..def2f3b
>> def2f3b Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master-ah3k'
>> 015c961 Remove log spam in FontManager
>> 7713ba1 Update third party submodule to latest
>> 10aac78 Merge pull request #9 in FE/core from
>> feature/FE-1348-selecting-continue-on-zero-balance to master-ah3k
>> 287882f FE-1376 Nedd to remain in check detail screen when selecting
>> donation after SBI
>> a5a6bed Do not overwrite the current check# within loop
>> dfb8547 Adding list of checks to CRspChecks before saving
>> 1be280a FE-1354: Guest logged out in specific multiple check scenario
>> de06d5a [FE-1348] Fix PATT exit while checks still open
>>
>> It's almost as if the `git diff --submodule=log` approach is passing
>> in --first-parent to git log, which would exclude commits in the range
>> that I'm seeing when I run git log manually.
>
> That is exactly the case. In prepare_submodule_summary() that option is
> set before doing the revision walk.
>
>> Is this by design? Is there a way to enable the full log history with
>> `git diff` on a submodule?
>
> This stems from the first implementation for showing submodule diffs in
> commit 752c0c24. I guess this was done deliberately to limit the amount
> of output you get for a submodule. At the moment this is hardcoded but I
> think there is nothing wrong with adding another option to include the
> full log.
>
> Cheers Heiko

I will go ahead and work on this feature. Here is what I'd like to see:

1. `git diff --submodule` should have the ability to display full logs
vs current logs (i.e. without --first-parent)
2. `git submodule summary` should have an option to display full logs
or "first-parent" logs.

For #1, do you recommend adding a 3rd setting for `diff.submodule`
config? Something like "full-log" or something? Or an entirely new
config? I noticed that in diff.h, the DIFF_OPT flags already consume
31 bits. If this is a 32-bit flag, there is only 1 bit left. If we go
with a 3rd setting for `diff.submodule` I think this might consume the
last bit.

We could also make `git diff --submodule` default to the "full log"
type, and if users want only first parent logs in submodule summary,
they'd have to execute `git submodule summary` instead.

There are a few options. What do you recommend? Thanks.

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Jens Lehmann]

Am 04.05.2015 um 17:05 schrieb Robert Dailey:
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:53:11PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
>>> I am attempting to diff a submodule modified in my working copy and
>>> the only difference is a merge commit. However, I do not get the
>>> "full" range of commits introduced by the merge commit when I diff it:
>>>
>>> $ git diff --submodule=log Core
>>> Submodule Core 8b4ec60..def2f3b:
>>>    > Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master-ah3k'
>>>
>>> However if I go inside my submodule and run `git log` by hand, I get
>>> more information about the TRUE commits introduced:
>>>
>>> $ git log --oneline 8b4ec60..def2f3b
>>> def2f3b Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master-ah3k'
>>> 015c961 Remove log spam in FontManager
>>> 7713ba1 Update third party submodule to latest
>>> 10aac78 Merge pull request #9 in FE/core from
>>> feature/FE-1348-selecting-continue-on-zero-balance to master-ah3k
>>> 287882f FE-1376 Nedd to remain in check detail screen when selecting
>>> donation after SBI
>>> a5a6bed Do not overwrite the current check# within loop
>>> dfb8547 Adding list of checks to CRspChecks before saving
>>> 1be280a FE-1354: Guest logged out in specific multiple check scenario
>>> de06d5a [FE-1348] Fix PATT exit while checks still open
>>>
>>> It's almost as if the `git diff --submodule=log` approach is passing
>>> in --first-parent to git log, which would exclude commits in the range
>>> that I'm seeing when I run git log manually.
>>
>> That is exactly the case. In prepare_submodule_summary() that option is
>> set before doing the revision walk.
>>
>>> Is this by design? Is there a way to enable the full log history with
>>> `git diff` on a submodule?
>>
>> This stems from the first implementation for showing submodule diffs in
>> commit 752c0c24. I guess this was done deliberately to limit the amount
>> of output you get for a submodule. At the moment this is hardcoded but I
>> think there is nothing wrong with adding another option to include the
>> full log.
>>
>> Cheers Heiko
>
> I will go ahead and work on this feature. Here is what I'd like to see:
>
> 1. `git diff --submodule` should have the ability to display full logs
> vs current logs (i.e. without --first-parent)

I agree. Just recently I started missing that feature too at $DAYJOB.

> 2. `git submodule summary` should have an option to display full logs
> or "first-parent" logs.

No objection against that. Maybe now is a good time to make `git
submodule summary` use `git diff --submodule` internally to make
them behave the same?

> For #1, do you recommend adding a 3rd setting for `diff.submodule`
> config? Something like "full-log" or something? Or an entirely new
> config?

I'd go with a 3rd setting for diff.submodule (and "full-log" would
have been my first choice too ;-).

 > I noticed that in diff.h, the DIFF_OPT flags already consume
> 31 bits. If this is a 32-bit flag, there is only 1 bit left. If we go
> with a 3rd setting for `diff.submodule` I think this might consume the
> last bit.

Yup. But I'm not sure we can do anything about it.

> We could also make `git diff --submodule` default to the "full log"
> type, and if users want only first parent logs in submodule summary,
> they'd have to execute `git submodule summary` instead.

Please do not change defaults that people lived fine with for years
lightly. But I won't object changing that on a major version if a
majority of users request that.

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Robert Dailey]

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de> wrote:
> Am 04.05.2015 um 17:05 schrieb Robert Dailey:
>>
>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:53:11PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am attempting to diff a submodule modified in my working copy and
>>>> the only difference is a merge commit. However, I do not get the
>>>> "full" range of commits introduced by the merge commit when I diff it:
>>>>
>>>> $ git diff --submodule=log Core
>>>> Submodule Core 8b4ec60..def2f3b:
>>>>    > Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master-ah3k'
>>>>
>>>> However if I go inside my submodule and run `git log` by hand, I get
>>>> more information about the TRUE commits introduced:
>>>>
>>>> $ git log --oneline 8b4ec60..def2f3b
>>>> def2f3b Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master-ah3k'
>>>> 015c961 Remove log spam in FontManager
>>>> 7713ba1 Update third party submodule to latest
>>>> 10aac78 Merge pull request #9 in FE/core from
>>>> feature/FE-1348-selecting-continue-on-zero-balance to master-ah3k
>>>> 287882f FE-1376 Nedd to remain in check detail screen when selecting
>>>> donation after SBI
>>>> a5a6bed Do not overwrite the current check# within loop
>>>> dfb8547 Adding list of checks to CRspChecks before saving
>>>> 1be280a FE-1354: Guest logged out in specific multiple check scenario
>>>> de06d5a [FE-1348] Fix PATT exit while checks still open
>>>>
>>>> It's almost as if the `git diff --submodule=log` approach is passing
>>>> in --first-parent to git log, which would exclude commits in the range
>>>> that I'm seeing when I run git log manually.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is exactly the case. In prepare_submodule_summary() that option is
>>> set before doing the revision walk.
>>>
>>>> Is this by design? Is there a way to enable the full log history with
>>>> `git diff` on a submodule?
>>>
>>>
>>> This stems from the first implementation for showing submodule diffs in
>>> commit 752c0c24. I guess this was done deliberately to limit the amount
>>> of output you get for a submodule. At the moment this is hardcoded but I
>>> think there is nothing wrong with adding another option to include the
>>> full log.
>>>
>>> Cheers Heiko
>>
>>
>> I will go ahead and work on this feature. Here is what I'd like to see:
>>
>> 1. `git diff --submodule` should have the ability to display full logs
>> vs current logs (i.e. without --first-parent)
>
>
> I agree. Just recently I started missing that feature too at $DAYJOB.
>
>> 2. `git submodule summary` should have an option to display full logs
>> or "first-parent" logs.
>
>
> No objection against that. Maybe now is a good time to make `git
> submodule summary` use `git diff --submodule` internally to make
> them behave the same?
>
>> For #1, do you recommend adding a 3rd setting for `diff.submodule`
>> config? Something like "full-log" or something? Or an entirely new
>> config?
>
>
> I'd go with a 3rd setting for diff.submodule (and "full-log" would
> have been my first choice too ;-).
>
>> I noticed that in diff.h, the DIFF_OPT flags already consume
>>
>> 31 bits. If this is a 32-bit flag, there is only 1 bit left. If we go
>> with a 3rd setting for `diff.submodule` I think this might consume the
>> last bit.
>
>
> Yup. But I'm not sure we can do anything about it.
>
>> We could also make `git diff --submodule` default to the "full log"
>> type, and if users want only first parent logs in submodule summary,
>> they'd have to execute `git submodule summary` instead.
>
>
> Please do not change defaults that people lived fine with for years
> lightly. But I won't object changing that on a major version if a
> majority of users request that.

Since I am not a linux user, I have implemented this feature against
the Git for Windows fork of git. I am not able to verify changes if I
make them directly against the Git repository. Is it OK if you guys
end up getting this as an upstream patch later from that project? Also
I am not familiar with the bash unit tests, I will need help with
that.

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Heiko Voigt]

Hi,

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 03:21:31PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
> Since I am not a linux user, I have implemented this feature against
> the Git for Windows fork of git. I am not able to verify changes if I
> make them directly against the Git repository. Is it OK if you guys
> end up getting this as an upstream patch later from that project? Also
> I am not familiar with the bash unit tests, I will need help with
> that.

I think there is nothing wrong with implementing it in the Windows
development environment and then sending the patch directly here. As
long as it is not Windows specific (which it should not be) that should
be fine and you save the Windows guys the work to get the patch
upstream (because here is upstream not there ;-)).

Have a look at some tests, they are quite simple. Basically they run git
commands in a && chain and the resulting return code tells the testsuite
whether that test succeeded or not. Maybe have a look at the test for
the existing --submodule option (t4041-diff-submodule-option.sh) as an
example. You can probably reuse the complete setup there and just add a
new test for the new option with the expected output. There is also a
README in the t/ folder. HTH.

Cheers Heiko

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Junio C Hamano]

Robert Dailey <rcdailey.lists@gmail.com> writes:

> For #1, do you recommend adding a 3rd setting for `diff.submodule`
> config? Something like "full-log" or something? Or an entirely new
> config? I noticed that in diff.h, the DIFF_OPT flags already consume
> 31 bits. If this is a 32-bit flag, there is only 1 bit left. If we go
> with a 3rd setting for `diff.submodule` I think this might consume the
> last bit.

Unless you are using opts->touched_flags infrastructure to do funky
defaulting dance, there is really nothing that forces you to use a
bit from the flag word for your new feature.  diff_options have many
standalone int fields that are used for either boolean or a small
enum (e.g. degraded_cc_to_c) and it is perfectly fine to use a new
such field.

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Robert,

On 2015-05-04 22:21, Robert Dailey wrote:

> Since I am not a linux user, I have implemented this feature against
> the Git for Windows fork of git. I am not able to verify changes if I
> make them directly against the Git repository.

That is why I worked so hard on support of Vagrant: https://github.com/msysgit/msysgit/wiki/Vagrant -- in short, it makes it dead easy for you to set up a *minimal* Linux VM inside your Git SDK and interact with it via ssh.

With the Vagrant solution, you can easily test Linux Git even on Windows.

Ciao,
Johannes

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Robert Dailey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1385 bytes --]

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Johannes Schindelin
<johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On 2015-05-04 22:21, Robert Dailey wrote:
>
>> Since I am not a linux user, I have implemented this feature against
>> the Git for Windows fork of git. I am not able to verify changes if I
>> make them directly against the Git repository.
>
> That is why I worked so hard on support of Vagrant: https://github.com/msysgit/msysgit/wiki/Vagrant -- in short, it makes it dead easy for you to set up a *minimal* Linux VM inside your Git SDK and interact with it via ssh.
>
> With the Vagrant solution, you can easily test Linux Git even on Windows.
>
> Ciao,
> Johannes

At the moment I have a "half-ass" patch attached. This implements the
feature itself. I'm able to test this and it seems to be working.
Please note I'm a C++ developer and straight C / Bash are not my
strong suits. I apologize in advance for any mistakes. I am open to
taking recommendations for corrections.

I'm not sure how I can verify the feature in a unit test. In addition
to learning bash scripting well enough to write the test, I am not
sure how to use git to check for the additional commits. Plus the repo
for the test will need to handle a submodule change to a merge commit
as well. Any advice on setting up a good test case for this? What
conditions should I check for, as far as log output goes?

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Add-full-log-option-to-diff.submodule.patch --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 4735 bytes --]

From 66db185ab76d0d893792d03dc0fc4913d868f218 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Robert Dailey <rcdailey@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 21:56:26 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Add 'full-log' option to diff.submodule

Like the 'log' option to `diff --submodule`, 'full-log' provides
logs without the `--first-parent` option.
---
 diff.c      | 16 ++++++++++++----
 diff.h      |  1 +
 submodule.c |  9 +++++----
 submodule.h |  3 ++-
 4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/diff.c b/diff.c
index 7500c55..58c4872 100644
--- a/diff.c
+++ b/diff.c
@@ -128,10 +128,18 @@ static int parse_dirstat_params(struct diff_options *options, const char *params
 
 static int parse_submodule_params(struct diff_options *options, const char *value)
 {
-	if (!strcmp(value, "log"))
+	if (!strcmp(value, "log")) {
 		DIFF_OPT_SET(options, SUBMODULE_LOG);
-	else if (!strcmp(value, "short"))
+		DIFF_OPT_CLR(options, SUBMODULE_FULL_LOG);
+	}
+	else if (!strcmp(value, "full-log")) {
+		DIFF_OPT_SET(options, SUBMODULE_FULL_LOG);
+		DIFF_OPT_CLR(options, SUBMODULE_LOG);
+	}
+	else if (!strcmp(value, "short")) {
 		DIFF_OPT_CLR(options, SUBMODULE_LOG);
+		DIFF_OPT_CLR(options, SUBMODULE_FULL_LOG);
+	}
 	else
 		return -1;
 	return 0;
@@ -2240,7 +2248,7 @@ static void builtin_diff(const char *name_a,
 	struct strbuf header = STRBUF_INIT;
 	const char *line_prefix = diff_line_prefix(o);
 
-	if (DIFF_OPT_TST(o, SUBMODULE_LOG) &&
+	if ((DIFF_OPT_TST(o, SUBMODULE_LOG) || DIFF_OPT_TST(o, SUBMODULE_FULL_LOG)) &&
 			(!one->mode || S_ISGITLINK(one->mode)) &&
 			(!two->mode || S_ISGITLINK(two->mode))) {
 		const char *del = diff_get_color_opt(o, DIFF_FILE_OLD);
@@ -2248,7 +2256,7 @@ static void builtin_diff(const char *name_a,
 		show_submodule_summary(o->file, one->path ? one->path : two->path,
 				line_prefix,
 				one->sha1, two->sha1, two->dirty_submodule,
-				meta, del, add, reset);
+				meta, del, add, reset, DIFF_OPT_TST(o, SUBMODULE_FULL_LOG));
 		return;
 	}
 
diff --git a/diff.h b/diff.h
index b4a624d..95f319c 100644
--- a/diff.h
+++ b/diff.h
@@ -90,6 +90,7 @@ typedef struct strbuf *(*diff_prefix_fn_t)(struct diff_options *opt, void *data)
 #define DIFF_OPT_DIRSTAT_BY_LINE     (1 << 28)
 #define DIFF_OPT_FUNCCONTEXT         (1 << 29)
 #define DIFF_OPT_PICKAXE_IGNORE_CASE (1 << 30)
+#define DIFF_OPT_SUBMODULE_FULL_LOG  (1 << 31)
 
 #define DIFF_OPT_TST(opts, flag)    ((opts)->flags & DIFF_OPT_##flag)
 #define DIFF_OPT_TOUCHED(opts, flag)    ((opts)->touched_flags & DIFF_OPT_##flag)
diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
index d37d400..f98173e 100644
--- a/submodule.c
+++ b/submodule.c
@@ -290,14 +290,14 @@ void handle_ignore_submodules_arg(struct diff_options *diffopt,
 
 static int prepare_submodule_summary(struct rev_info *rev, const char *path,
 		struct commit *left, struct commit *right,
-		int *fast_forward, int *fast_backward)
+		int *fast_forward, int *fast_backward, unsigned full_log)
 {
 	struct commit_list *merge_bases, *list;
 
 	init_revisions(rev, NULL);
 	setup_revisions(0, NULL, rev, NULL);
 	rev->left_right = 1;
-	rev->first_parent_only = 1;
+	rev->first_parent_only = full_log ? 0 : 1;
 	left->object.flags |= SYMMETRIC_LEFT;
 	add_pending_object(rev, &left->object, path);
 	add_pending_object(rev, &right->object, path);
@@ -363,7 +363,8 @@ void show_submodule_summary(FILE *f, const char *path,
 		const char *line_prefix,
 		unsigned char one[20], unsigned char two[20],
 		unsigned dirty_submodule, const char *meta,
-		const char *del, const char *add, const char *reset)
+		const char *del, const char *add, const char *reset,
+		unsigned full_log)
 {
 	struct rev_info rev;
 	struct commit *left = NULL, *right = NULL;
@@ -381,7 +382,7 @@ void show_submodule_summary(FILE *f, const char *path,
 		 !(right = lookup_commit_reference(two)))
 		message = "(commits not present)";
 	else if (prepare_submodule_summary(&rev, path, left, right,
-					   &fast_forward, &fast_backward))
+					   &fast_forward, &fast_backward, full_log))
 		message = "(revision walker failed)";
 
 	if (dirty_submodule & DIRTY_SUBMODULE_UNTRACKED)
diff --git a/submodule.h b/submodule.h
index 7beec48..301358b 100644
--- a/submodule.h
+++ b/submodule.h
@@ -26,7 +26,8 @@ void show_submodule_summary(FILE *f, const char *path,
 		const char *line_prefix,
 		unsigned char one[20], unsigned char two[20],
 		unsigned dirty_submodule, const char *meta,
-		const char *del, const char *add, const char *reset);
+		const char *del, const char *add, const char *reset,
+		unsigned full_log);
 void set_config_fetch_recurse_submodules(int value);
 void check_for_new_submodule_commits(unsigned char new_sha1[20]);
 int fetch_populated_submodules(const struct argv_array *options,
-- 
2.4.1.windows.1

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Heiko Voigt]

Hi,

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 03:33:07PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Johannes Schindelin
> <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > On 2015-05-04 22:21, Robert Dailey wrote:
> >
> >> Since I am not a linux user, I have implemented this feature against
> >> the Git for Windows fork of git. I am not able to verify changes if I
> >> make them directly against the Git repository.
> >
> > That is why I worked so hard on support of Vagrant: https://github.com/msysgit/msysgit/wiki/Vagrant -- in short, it makes it dead easy for you to set up a *minimal* Linux VM inside your Git SDK and interact with it via ssh.
> >
> > With the Vagrant solution, you can easily test Linux Git even on Windows.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Johannes
> 
> At the moment I have a "half-ass" patch attached. This implements the
> feature itself. I'm able to test this and it seems to be working.
> Please note I'm a C++ developer and straight C / Bash are not my
> strong suits. I apologize in advance for any mistakes. I am open to
> taking recommendations for corrections.

Please inline the patch, so people can easily comment. Have a look at
Documentation/SubmittingPatches and patches on this list for an example.
I have inlined your patch below for comments.

> I'm not sure how I can verify the feature in a unit test. In addition
> to learning bash scripting well enough to write the test, I am not
> sure how to use git to check for the additional commits. Plus the repo
> for the test will need to handle a submodule change to a merge commit
> as well. Any advice on setting up a good test case for this? What
> conditions should I check for, as far as log output goes?

The testsuite can be found in t/ the README there describes most of it.
Have a look at t4041-diff-submodule-option.sh and imitate the tests for
the existing log option. What they basically do is: Write a file with
the expected output of the diff and then compare the actual output with
it. That should also be possible for your option.

As for the merge commit: If there is no merge commit in the submodule
that is used for testing you can simply add a sequence of git commands
that manufactures the situation in the test repository as you need it.

'test_pause' is a helpful command to interactively debug/develop tests.
Run the test with the -v -i switches (maybe -d) when developing.

Comments for your patch please see below.

Cheers Heiko

> From: Robert Dailey <rcdailey@gmail.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] Add 'full-log' option to diff.submodule
> 
> Like the 'log' option to `diff --submodule`, 'full-log' provides
> logs without the `--first-parent` option.
> ---
>  diff.c      | 16 ++++++++++++----
>  diff.h      |  1 +
>  submodule.c |  9 +++++----
>  submodule.h |  3 ++-
>  4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/diff.c b/diff.c
> index 7500c55..58c4872 100644
> --- a/diff.c
> +++ b/diff.c
> @@ -128,10 +128,18 @@ static int parse_dirstat_params(struct diff_options *options, const char *params
>  
>  static int parse_submodule_params(struct diff_options *options, const char *value)
>  {
> -	if (!strcmp(value, "log"))
> +	if (!strcmp(value, "log")) {
>  		DIFF_OPT_SET(options, SUBMODULE_LOG);
> -	else if (!strcmp(value, "short"))
> +		DIFF_OPT_CLR(options, SUBMODULE_FULL_LOG);
> +	}
> +	else if (!strcmp(value, "full-log")) {
> +		DIFF_OPT_SET(options, SUBMODULE_FULL_LOG);
> +		DIFF_OPT_CLR(options, SUBMODULE_LOG);
> +	}
> +	else if (!strcmp(value, "short")) {
>  		DIFF_OPT_CLR(options, SUBMODULE_LOG);
> +		DIFF_OPT_CLR(options, SUBMODULE_FULL_LOG);
> +	}

Here I think clearing the bits first and then setting them would be
simpler and less error prone for further extensions. E.g. in the
beginning of the function:

	DIFF_OPT_CLR(options, SUBMODULE_LOG);
	DIFF_OPT_CLR(options, SUBMODULE_FULL_LOG);

and then

	if (!strcmp(value, "log"))
		DIFF_OPT_SET(options, SUBMODULE_LOG);
	else if (...


>  	else
>  		return -1;
>  	return 0;
> @@ -2240,7 +2248,7 @@ static void builtin_diff(const char *name_a,
>  	struct strbuf header = STRBUF_INIT;
>  	const char *line_prefix = diff_line_prefix(o);
>  
> -	if (DIFF_OPT_TST(o, SUBMODULE_LOG) &&
> +	if ((DIFF_OPT_TST(o, SUBMODULE_LOG) || DIFF_OPT_TST(o, SUBMODULE_FULL_LOG)) &&

Try to keep your line length less than 80 characters.
(Documentation/CodingGuidelines)

>  			(!one->mode || S_ISGITLINK(one->mode)) &&
>  			(!two->mode || S_ISGITLINK(two->mode))) {
>  		const char *del = diff_get_color_opt(o, DIFF_FILE_OLD);
> @@ -2248,7 +2256,7 @@ static void builtin_diff(const char *name_a,
>  		show_submodule_summary(o->file, one->path ? one->path : two->path,
>  				line_prefix,
>  				one->sha1, two->sha1, two->dirty_submodule,
> -				meta, del, add, reset);
> +				meta, del, add, reset, DIFF_OPT_TST(o, SUBMODULE_FULL_LOG));

Same as above.

>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> diff --git a/diff.h b/diff.h
> index b4a624d..95f319c 100644
> --- a/diff.h
> +++ b/diff.h
> @@ -90,6 +90,7 @@ typedef struct strbuf *(*diff_prefix_fn_t)(struct diff_options *opt, void *data)
>  #define DIFF_OPT_DIRSTAT_BY_LINE     (1 << 28)
>  #define DIFF_OPT_FUNCCONTEXT         (1 << 29)
>  #define DIFF_OPT_PICKAXE_IGNORE_CASE (1 << 30)
> +#define DIFF_OPT_SUBMODULE_FULL_LOG  (1 << 31)
>  
>  #define DIFF_OPT_TST(opts, flag)    ((opts)->flags & DIFF_OPT_##flag)
>  #define DIFF_OPT_TOUCHED(opts, flag)    ((opts)->touched_flags & DIFF_OPT_##flag)
> diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
> index d37d400..f98173e 100644
> --- a/submodule.c
> +++ b/submodule.c
> @@ -290,14 +290,14 @@ void handle_ignore_submodules_arg(struct diff_options *diffopt,
>  
>  static int prepare_submodule_summary(struct rev_info *rev, const char *path,
>  		struct commit *left, struct commit *right,
> -		int *fast_forward, int *fast_backward)
> +		int *fast_forward, int *fast_backward, unsigned full_log)
>  {
>  	struct commit_list *merge_bases, *list;
>  
>  	init_revisions(rev, NULL);
>  	setup_revisions(0, NULL, rev, NULL);
>  	rev->left_right = 1;
> -	rev->first_parent_only = 1;
> +	rev->first_parent_only = full_log ? 0 : 1;
>  	left->object.flags |= SYMMETRIC_LEFT;
>  	add_pending_object(rev, &left->object, path);
>  	add_pending_object(rev, &right->object, path);
> @@ -363,7 +363,8 @@ void show_submodule_summary(FILE *f, const char *path,
>  		const char *line_prefix,
>  		unsigned char one[20], unsigned char two[20],
>  		unsigned dirty_submodule, const char *meta,
> -		const char *del, const char *add, const char *reset)
> +		const char *del, const char *add, const char *reset,
> +		unsigned full_log)
>  {
>  	struct rev_info rev;
>  	struct commit *left = NULL, *right = NULL;
> @@ -381,7 +382,7 @@ void show_submodule_summary(FILE *f, const char *path,
>  		 !(right = lookup_commit_reference(two)))
>  		message = "(commits not present)";
>  	else if (prepare_submodule_summary(&rev, path, left, right,
> -					   &fast_forward, &fast_backward))
> +					   &fast_forward, &fast_backward, full_log))

Line length.

>  		message = "(revision walker failed)";
>  
>  	if (dirty_submodule & DIRTY_SUBMODULE_UNTRACKED)
> diff --git a/submodule.h b/submodule.h
> index 7beec48..301358b 100644
> --- a/submodule.h
> +++ b/submodule.h
> @@ -26,7 +26,8 @@ void show_submodule_summary(FILE *f, const char *path,
>  		const char *line_prefix,
>  		unsigned char one[20], unsigned char two[20],
>  		unsigned dirty_submodule, const char *meta,
> -		const char *del, const char *add, const char *reset);
> +		const char *del, const char *add, const char *reset,
> +		unsigned full_log);
>  void set_config_fetch_recurse_submodules(int value);
>  void check_for_new_submodule_commits(unsigned char new_sha1[20]);
>  int fetch_populated_submodules(const struct argv_array *options,

Apart from the comments above, your patch looks good to me.

Cheers Heiko

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Robert Dailey]

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 03:33:07PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
>> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Johannes Schindelin
>> <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>> > Hi Robert,
>> >
>> > On 2015-05-04 22:21, Robert Dailey wrote:
>> >
>> >> Since I am not a linux user, I have implemented this feature against
>> >> the Git for Windows fork of git. I am not able to verify changes if I
>> >> make them directly against the Git repository.
>> >
>> > That is why I worked so hard on support of Vagrant: https://github.com/msysgit/msysgit/wiki/Vagrant -- in short, it makes it dead easy for you to set up a *minimal* Linux VM inside your Git SDK and interact with it via ssh.
>> >
>> > With the Vagrant solution, you can easily test Linux Git even on Windows.
>> >
>> > Ciao,
>> > Johannes
>>
>> At the moment I have a "half-ass" patch attached. This implements the
>> feature itself. I'm able to test this and it seems to be working.
>> Please note I'm a C++ developer and straight C / Bash are not my
>> strong suits. I apologize in advance for any mistakes. I am open to
>> taking recommendations for corrections.
>
> Please inline the patch, so people can easily comment. Have a look at
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches and patches on this list for an example.
> I have inlined your patch below for comments.
>
>> I'm not sure how I can verify the feature in a unit test. In addition
>> to learning bash scripting well enough to write the test, I am not
>> sure how to use git to check for the additional commits. Plus the repo
>> for the test will need to handle a submodule change to a merge commit
>> as well. Any advice on setting up a good test case for this? What
>> conditions should I check for, as far as log output goes?
>
> The testsuite can be found in t/ the README there describes most of it.
> Have a look at t4041-diff-submodule-option.sh and imitate the tests for
> the existing log option. What they basically do is: Write a file with
> the expected output of the diff and then compare the actual output with
> it. That should also be possible for your option.
>
> As for the merge commit: If there is no merge commit in the submodule
> that is used for testing you can simply add a sequence of git commands
> that manufactures the situation in the test repository as you need it.
>
> 'test_pause' is a helpful command to interactively debug/develop tests.
> Run the test with the -v -i switches (maybe -d) when developing.
>
> Comments for your patch please see below.
>
> <snip>

Unfortunately I find it unintuitive and counter productive to perform
inline patches or do anything on a mailing list. Especially on
Windows, it's a pain to setup git to effectively do this. Also I read
mailing lists through Gmail which does not offer a proper monospace
font view or syntax coloring to effectively review patches and
comments pertaining to them.

Since I am not willing to properly follow your process, I will
withdraw my patch. However it is here if someone else wishes to take
it over. Really wish you guys used github's amazing features but I
understand that Linus has already made his decision in that matter.

I'm sorry I couldn't be more agreeable on the matter. Thanks for the
time you spent reviewing my patch.

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Heiko Voigt]

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:06:32AM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
> Unfortunately I find it unintuitive and counter productive to perform
> inline patches or do anything on a mailing list. Especially on
> Windows, it's a pain to setup git to effectively do this. Also I read
> mailing lists through Gmail which does not offer a proper monospace
> font view or syntax coloring to effectively review patches and
> comments pertaining to them.

Are you sure you are not overestimating the effort it takes to send
patches inline? Once you've got your user agent correctly setup its just
a matter of copy and paste instead of attaching the patch. On Windows I
would probably use Thunderbird which has a section in the format-patch
documentation how to configure it. Compared to the effort you probably
spent on writing your patch isn't this bit of extra effort neglectable?
And your patch is almost done. It just needs some tests and maybe a few
rounds on the mailinglist after that.

> Since I am not willing to properly follow your process, I will
> withdraw my patch. However it is here if someone else wishes to take
> it over. Really wish you guys used github's amazing features but I
> understand that Linus has already made his decision in that matter.

It not just Linus decision it is also a matter of many people are used
to this workflow. AFAIR there have been many discussions and tries about
using other tools. Email has many advantages which a webinterface does
not provide. It is simply less effort that one person adjusts to this
workflow instead of changing many peoples working workflow.

> I'm sorry I couldn't be more agreeable on the matter. Thanks for the
> time you spent reviewing my patch.

If you are really this fixed in your workflow that would be too bad.

Cheers Heiko

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Robert Dailey]

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net> wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:06:32AM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
>> Unfortunately I find it unintuitive and counter productive to perform
>> inline patches or do anything on a mailing list. Especially on
>> Windows, it's a pain to setup git to effectively do this. Also I read
>> mailing lists through Gmail which does not offer a proper monospace
>> font view or syntax coloring to effectively review patches and
>> comments pertaining to them.
>
> Are you sure you are not overestimating the effort it takes to send
> patches inline? Once you've got your user agent correctly setup its just
> a matter of copy and paste instead of attaching the patch. On Windows I
> would probably use Thunderbird which has a section in the format-patch
> documentation how to configure it. Compared to the effort you probably
> spent on writing your patch isn't this bit of extra effort neglectable?
> And your patch is almost done. It just needs some tests and maybe a few
> rounds on the mailinglist after that.
>
>> Since I am not willing to properly follow your process, I will
>> withdraw my patch. However it is here if someone else wishes to take
>> it over. Really wish you guys used github's amazing features but I
>> understand that Linus has already made his decision in that matter.
>
> It not just Linus decision it is also a matter of many people are used
> to this workflow. AFAIR there have been many discussions and tries about
> using other tools. Email has many advantages which a webinterface does
> not provide. It is simply less effort that one person adjusts to this
> workflow instead of changing many peoples working workflow.
>
>> I'm sorry I couldn't be more agreeable on the matter. Thanks for the
>> time you spent reviewing my patch.
>
> If you are really this fixed in your workflow that would be too bad.

How do you send your patches inline? Do you use git send-email? I have
tried that and it is horrible to setup. Do you just copy/paste the
patch inline in your compose window?

It would be much simpler to fork Git, create a branch, make my change,
and initiate a pull request. I can get email notifications on comments
to my PR diff and address them with subsequent pushes to my branch
(which would also automatically update the code review). Turn around
times for collaborating on a change are much quicker via Github pull
requests.

I am willing to review the typical workflow for contributing via git
on mailing lists but I haven't seen any informative reading material
on this. I just find using command line to email patches and dealing
with other issues not worth the trouble. Lack of syntax highlighting,
lack of monospace font, the fact that I'm basically forced to install
mail client software just to contribute a single git patch.

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Stefan Beller]

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Robert Dailey
<rcdailey.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> How do you send your patches inline?

There are various ways to do so.
If you look at https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and search for Thunderbird (I used to use Thunderbird for a long time
before switching to
git send-email, so I'll take that as an example) at the bottom:

    Thunderbird, KMail, GMail
    -------------------------

    See the MUA-SPECIFIC HINTS section of git-format-patch(1).

Ok, indirection is the fun part of computers. ;)
So you'd look at the man page of git format patch,
such as here http://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch
and scroll the way down to MUA-SPECIFIC HINTS, which offers
3 different ways of doing it. (decisions!)

> Do you use git send-email?

I do, but I remember my initial struggle with it (I will contribute only
one patch anyway, so why care?)

> I have
> tried that and it is horrible to setup. Do you just copy/paste the
> patch inline in your compose window?

Once setup correctly git formatpatch / send-email are actually very
convenient (e.g. git send-email HEAD^ --to=git@vger.kernel.org will
just work. And I have strong confidence in it continuing to work,
even when Git decides to revamp the preferred patch format,
line wrapping or other exotic stuff)

>
> It would be much simpler to fork Git, create a branch, make my change,
> and initiate a pull request. I can get email notifications on comments
> to my PR diff and address them with subsequent pushes to my branch
> (which would also automatically update the code review). Turn around
> times for collaborating on a change are much quicker via Github pull
> requests.

Github has indeed an excellent product, even free for open source.

This workflow discussion was a topic at the GitMerge2015 conference,
and there are essentially 2 groups, those who know how to send email
and those who complain about it. A solution was agreed on by nearly all
of the contributors. It would be awesome to have a git-to-email proxy,
such that you could do a git push <proxy> master:refs/for/mailinglist
and this proxy would convert the push into sending patch series to the
mailing list. It could even convert the following discussion back into
comments (on Github?) but as a first step we'd want to try out a one
way proxy.

Unfortunately nobody stepped up to actually do the work, yet :(

>
> I am willing to review the typical workflow for contributing via git
> on mailing lists but I haven't seen any informative reading material
> on this. I just find using command line to email patches and dealing
> with other issues not worth the trouble. Lack of syntax highlighting,
> lack of monospace font, the fact that I'm basically forced to install
> mail client software just to contribute a single git patch.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Heiko Voigt]

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 02:29:55PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:06:32AM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
> >> Unfortunately I find it unintuitive and counter productive to perform
> >> inline patches or do anything on a mailing list. Especially on
> >> Windows, it's a pain to setup git to effectively do this. Also I read
> >> mailing lists through Gmail which does not offer a proper monospace
> >> font view or syntax coloring to effectively review patches and
> >> comments pertaining to them.
> >
> > Are you sure you are not overestimating the effort it takes to send
> > patches inline? Once you've got your user agent correctly setup its just
> > a matter of copy and paste instead of attaching the patch. On Windows I
> > would probably use Thunderbird which has a section in the format-patch
> > documentation how to configure it. Compared to the effort you probably
> > spent on writing your patch isn't this bit of extra effort neglectable?
> > And your patch is almost done. It just needs some tests and maybe a few
> > rounds on the mailinglist after that.
> >
> >> Since I am not willing to properly follow your process, I will
> >> withdraw my patch. However it is here if someone else wishes to take
> >> it over. Really wish you guys used github's amazing features but I
> >> understand that Linus has already made his decision in that matter.
> >
> > It not just Linus decision it is also a matter of many people are used
> > to this workflow. AFAIR there have been many discussions and tries about
> > using other tools. Email has many advantages which a webinterface does
> > not provide. It is simply less effort that one person adjusts to this
> > workflow instead of changing many peoples working workflow.
> >
> >> I'm sorry I couldn't be more agreeable on the matter. Thanks for the
> >> time you spent reviewing my patch.
> >
> > If you are really this fixed in your workflow that would be too bad.
> 
> How do you send your patches inline? Do you use git send-email? I have
> tried that and it is horrible to setup. Do you just copy/paste the
> patch inline in your compose window?

For bigger patch series I did use send-email but currently I am back to
just using the compose window from whatever email client I am using. On
Windows that would be Thunderbird. But when possible I am not using
Windows.

> It would be much simpler to fork Git, create a branch, make my change,
> and initiate a pull request. I can get email notifications on comments
> to my PR diff and address them with subsequent pushes to my branch
> (which would also automatically update the code review). Turn around
> times for collaborating on a change are much quicker via Github pull
> requests.

I think that depends more on the collaborators than on the tool. When
you get quick replies the turnaround times with both workflows are
quick.

It would be nice if there was a perfect solution for every project that
everyone could use but unfortunately there is not so we sometimes have
to adjust. But I think its more matter of what you are used to. If you
did not have a github account but email software setup you could
complain about the fact that you need to register a github account, fork
git, setup that fork in your local repository, ... instead of just copy
and paste your change into the compose window and then send it to a
mailinglist.

> I am willing to review the typical workflow for contributing via git
> on mailing lists but I haven't seen any informative reading material
> on this. I just find using command line to email patches and dealing
> with other issues not worth the trouble. Lack of syntax highlighting,
> lack of monospace font, the fact that I'm basically forced to install
> mail client software just to contribute a single git patch.

As already mentioned by Stefan there is Documentation/SubmittingPatches
in the Git repository that describes everything and also has a section
on how to do that with Thunderbird.

I tend to not do much on the commandline on Windows since it basically
sucks there. For sending patches you just need

	git format-patch HEAD^

and thats it.

Cheers Heiko

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Roberto Tyley]

On Tuesday, 19 May 2015, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Robert Dailey
> <rcdailey.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How do you send your patches inline?
>
> This workflow discussion was a topic at the GitMerge2015 conference,
> and there are essentially 2 groups, those who know how to send email
> and those who complain about it. A solution was agreed on by nearly all
> of the contributors. It would be awesome to have a git-to-email proxy,
> such that you could do a git push <proxy> master:refs/for/mailinglist
> and this proxy would convert the push into sending patch series to the
> mailing list. It could even convert the following discussion back into
> comments (on Github?) but as a first step we'd want to try out a one
> way proxy.
>
> Unfortunately nobody stepped up to actually do the work, yet :(

I've replied to this on a separate announcement thread on the Git mailing
list here:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/269699

...I've created a new tool called submitGit, which aims to help.

> > I am willing to review the typical workflow for contributing via git
> > on mailing lists but I haven't seen any informative reading material
> > on this. I just find using command line to email patches and dealing
> > with other issues not worth the trouble. Lack of syntax highlighting,
> > lack of monospace font, the fact that I'm basically forced to install
> > mail client software just to contribute a single git patch.

I'd be interested to know what you think!

Roberto

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Robert Dailey]

On 5/21/2015 7:51 AM, Heiko Voigt wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 02:29:55PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:06:32AM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately I find it unintuitive and counter productive to perform
>>>> inline patches or do anything on a mailing list. Especially on
>>>> Windows, it's a pain to setup git to effectively do this. Also I read
>>>> mailing lists through Gmail which does not offer a proper monospace
>>>> font view or syntax coloring to effectively review patches and
>>>> comments pertaining to them.
>>>
>>> Are you sure you are not overestimating the effort it takes to send
>>> patches inline? Once you've got your user agent correctly setup its just
>>> a matter of copy and paste instead of attaching the patch. On Windows I
>>> would probably use Thunderbird which has a section in the format-patch
>>> documentation how to configure it. Compared to the effort you probably
>>> spent on writing your patch isn't this bit of extra effort neglectable?
>>> And your patch is almost done. It just needs some tests and maybe a few
>>> rounds on the mailinglist after that.
>>>
>>>> Since I am not willing to properly follow your process, I will
>>>> withdraw my patch. However it is here if someone else wishes to take
>>>> it over. Really wish you guys used github's amazing features but I
>>>> understand that Linus has already made his decision in that matter.
>>>
>>> It not just Linus decision it is also a matter of many people are used
>>> to this workflow. AFAIR there have been many discussions and tries about
>>> using other tools. Email has many advantages which a webinterface does
>>> not provide. It is simply less effort that one person adjusts to this
>>> workflow instead of changing many peoples working workflow.
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry I couldn't be more agreeable on the matter. Thanks for the
>>>> time you spent reviewing my patch.
>>>
>>> If you are really this fixed in your workflow that would be too bad.
>>
>> How do you send your patches inline? Do you use git send-email? I have
>> tried that and it is horrible to setup. Do you just copy/paste the
>> patch inline in your compose window?
>
> For bigger patch series I did use send-email but currently I am back to
> just using the compose window from whatever email client I am using. On
> Windows that would be Thunderbird. But when possible I am not using
> Windows.
>
>> It would be much simpler to fork Git, create a branch, make my change,
>> and initiate a pull request. I can get email notifications on comments
>> to my PR diff and address them with subsequent pushes to my branch
>> (which would also automatically update the code review). Turn around
>> times for collaborating on a change are much quicker via Github pull
>> requests.
>
> I think that depends more on the collaborators than on the tool. When
> you get quick replies the turnaround times with both workflows are
> quick.
>
> It would be nice if there was a perfect solution for every project that
> everyone could use but unfortunately there is not so we sometimes have
> to adjust. But I think its more matter of what you are used to. If you
> did not have a github account but email software setup you could
> complain about the fact that you need to register a github account, fork
> git, setup that fork in your local repository, ... instead of just copy
> and paste your change into the compose window and then send it to a
> mailinglist.
>
>> I am willing to review the typical workflow for contributing via git
>> on mailing lists but I haven't seen any informative reading material
>> on this. I just find using command line to email patches and dealing
>> with other issues not worth the trouble. Lack of syntax highlighting,
>> lack of monospace font, the fact that I'm basically forced to install
>> mail client software just to contribute a single git patch.
>
> As already mentioned by Stefan there is Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> in the Git repository that describes everything and also has a section
> on how to do that with Thunderbird.
>
> I tend to not do much on the commandline on Windows since it basically
> sucks there. For sending patches you just need
>
> 	git format-patch HEAD^
>
> and thats it.
>
> Cheers Heiko
>

So I am working on trying to setup my environment (VM through Virtual 
Box) to do some testing on this. You all have encouraged me to try the 
mailing list review model. So I won't give up yet.

In the meantime I'd like to ask, do we even need to add an option for 
this? What if we just make `diff.submodule log` not use --first-parent? 
This seems like a backward compatible change in of itself. And it's 
simpler to implement. I can't think of a good justification to add more 
settings to an already hugely complex configuration scheme for such a 
minor difference in behavior.

Thoughts?

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Heiko Voigt]

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:18:11PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
> So I am working on trying to setup my environment (VM through Virtual Box)
> to do some testing on this. You all have encouraged me to try the mailing
> list review model. So I won't give up yet.

I am not sure you need a VM or Linux environment. Of course it will be
helpful in case your tests do no pass on Linux (which they sometimes do
due to some differences between the OSes). But until we actually run
into that problem I do not see anything wrong developing your change
purely on Windows. Since it seems you are more familiar with that
platform I would even encourage you to do so. That reduces the toolset
friction which you might experience in a new environment. Even if you
run into the problem, that your tests do not pass on Linux, we might be
able to solve that on the list.

Have you seen the github pull request -> mailing list proxy thing[1]? If
that helps you maybe you can test it and use it for your patch
submission. I think nobody will be annoyed if we get some strange emails
on the list during that testing phase since that might help more
contributors to contribute.

> In the meantime I'd like to ask, do we even need to add an option for this?
> What if we just make `diff.submodule log` not use --first-parent? This seems
> like a backward compatible change in of itself. And it's simpler to
> implement. I can't think of a good justification to add more settings to an
> already hugely complex configuration scheme for such a minor difference in
> behavior.
> 
> Thoughts?

This behavior has been with --first-parent for a long time. Even though
it seems like a minor change in my experience there will be complaints
from people that have got used to it and will now get big differences.
You never know how people use it. Since the extra value (full-log)
(AFAIR) has reached a consensus on the list and it allows us to satisfy
both long log and short log users I would prefer to go that route.

Cheers Heiko

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/269699

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Junio C Hamano]

Robert Dailey <rcdailey.lists@gmail.com> writes:

> In the meantime I'd like to ask, do we even need to add an option for
> this? What if we just make `diff.submodule log` not use
> --first-parent? This seems like a backward compatible change in of
> itself.

Why?  People have relied on submodule-log not to include all the
noise coming from individual commits on side branches and instead
appreciated seeing only the overview by merges of side branch topics
being listed---why is regressing the system to inconvenience these
existing users "a backward compatible change"?

> And it's simpler to implement. I can't think of a good
> justification to add more settings to an already hugely complex
> configuration scheme for such a minor difference in behavior.

Careful, as that argument can cut both ways.  If it is so a minor
difference in behaviour, perhaps we can do without not just an
option but a feature to omit --first-parent here.  That would be
even simpler to implement, as you do not have to do anything.

So, if you think the new behaviour can help _some_ users, then you
would need the feature and a knob to enable it, I would think.

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Robert Dailey]

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Robert Dailey <rcdailey.lists@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> In the meantime I'd like to ask, do we even need to add an option for
>> this? What if we just make `diff.submodule log` not use
>> --first-parent? This seems like a backward compatible change in of
>> itself.
>
> Why?  People have relied on submodule-log not to include all the
> noise coming from individual commits on side branches and instead
> appreciated seeing only the overview by merges of side branch topics
> being listed---why is regressing the system to inconvenience these
> existing users "a backward compatible change"?

Backward compatible in the sense that it does not break existing
functionality. For example, removing -D from `git branch` would be a
backward breaking change.

Also not everyone has a disciplined merge-commit editing policy like
the Linux & Git projects do. In fact (especially in corporate
environments), most merge commit messages are useless and
auto-generated. It's in fact very common (depending on popular
tooling) to not have the ability to edit these messages. Example:

    Merge branch "topic" into "master"

This is the defacto message you get when you use Github, Atlassian
Stash, etc. any time you merge a PR. For repositories that only accept
changes through pull requests, it is not possible to generate a diff
log of submodules that is useful without showing the ancestor commits
on all parents. Right now 'log' literally gives you the following for
a submodule that has a mainline branch that does not accept direct
pushes (i.e. only PRs):

    > Merge branch "topic1" into "master"
    > Merge branch "topic2" into "master"
    > Merge branch "origin/develop" into "master"
    > Merge branch "topic3" into "master"

I would argue that this situation is common -- more common than what
you would typically see in a well groomed git repository that does not
use PRs or always does rebase+ff-merge.

That is the basis for my concern. No functionality is broken and
cators to the common case. But I guess since we're discussing 2
distinct workflows, it makes sense to have 2 options for viewing the
submodule logs. Because if 'full-log' were indeed the default, it
would cause a lot of noise in the well-disciplined-merge-commit
workflow.

>From a high level (to explain my motivation for my simplified and
arguably naive suggestion), I work with a lot of amateur users of Git.
They always complain about using Git and how "SVN is better". Yet they
do not accept the challenge of learning Git, which is a very
complicated tool. Much of git I would argue is not very beginner (even
user) friendly (although things are certainly getting better). With
such an advanced tool, with such complex configuration and behavior,
and given all the friction it causes, I can only do my best to offer
seemingly sensible alternatives to adding MORE configuration.

Anyway it's just a thought. Glad to get feedback and I see both sides
of the fence on this one.

>> And it's simpler to implement. I can't think of a good
>> justification to add more settings to an already hugely complex
>> configuration scheme for such a minor difference in behavior.
>
> Careful, as that argument can cut both ways.  If it is so a minor
> difference in behaviour, perhaps we can do without not just an
> option but a feature to omit --first-parent here.  That would be
> even simpler to implement, as you do not have to do anything.
>
> So, if you think the new behaviour can help _some_ users, then you
> would need the feature and a knob to enable it, I would think.

I don't really understand your contrasted example here. Can you explain:

    "...we can do without not just an option but a feature to omit
--first-parent..."

Again thanks for the feedback.

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Robert Dailey]

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Robert Dailey <rcdailey.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Robert Dailey <rcdailey.lists@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> In the meantime I'd like to ask, do we even need to add an option for
>>> this? What if we just make `diff.submodule log` not use
>>> --first-parent? This seems like a backward compatible change in of
>>> itself.
>>
>> Why?  People have relied on submodule-log not to include all the
>> noise coming from individual commits on side branches and instead
>> appreciated seeing only the overview by merges of side branch topics
>> being listed---why is regressing the system to inconvenience these
>> existing users "a backward compatible change"?
>
> Backward compatible in the sense that it does not break existing
> functionality. For example, removing -D from `git branch` would be a
> backward breaking change.
>
> Also not everyone has a disciplined merge-commit editing policy like
> the Linux & Git projects do. In fact (especially in corporate
> environments), most merge commit messages are useless and
> auto-generated. It's in fact very common (depending on popular
> tooling) to not have the ability to edit these messages. Example:
>
>     Merge branch "topic" into "master"
>
> This is the defacto message you get when you use Github, Atlassian
> Stash, etc. any time you merge a PR. For repositories that only accept
> changes through pull requests, it is not possible to generate a diff
> log of submodules that is useful without showing the ancestor commits
> on all parents. Right now 'log' literally gives you the following for
> a submodule that has a mainline branch that does not accept direct
> pushes (i.e. only PRs):
>
>     > Merge branch "topic1" into "master"
>     > Merge branch "topic2" into "master"
>     > Merge branch "origin/develop" into "master"
>     > Merge branch "topic3" into "master"
>
> I would argue that this situation is common -- more common than what
> you would typically see in a well groomed git repository that does not
> use PRs or always does rebase+ff-merge.
>
> That is the basis for my concern. No functionality is broken and
> cators to the common case. But I guess since we're discussing 2
> distinct workflows, it makes sense to have 2 options for viewing the
> submodule logs. Because if 'full-log' were indeed the default, it
> would cause a lot of noise in the well-disciplined-merge-commit
> workflow.
>
> From a high level (to explain my motivation for my simplified and
> arguably naive suggestion), I work with a lot of amateur users of Git.
> They always complain about using Git and how "SVN is better". Yet they
> do not accept the challenge of learning Git, which is a very
> complicated tool. Much of git I would argue is not very beginner (even
> user) friendly (although things are certainly getting better). With
> such an advanced tool, with such complex configuration and behavior,
> and given all the friction it causes, I can only do my best to offer
> seemingly sensible alternatives to adding MORE configuration.
>
> Anyway it's just a thought. Glad to get feedback and I see both sides
> of the fence on this one.
>
>>> And it's simpler to implement. I can't think of a good
>>> justification to add more settings to an already hugely complex
>>> configuration scheme for such a minor difference in behavior.
>>
>> Careful, as that argument can cut both ways.  If it is so a minor
>> difference in behaviour, perhaps we can do without not just an
>> option but a feature to omit --first-parent here.  That would be
>> even simpler to implement, as you do not have to do anything.
>>
>> So, if you think the new behaviour can help _some_ users, then you
>> would need the feature and a knob to enable it, I would think.
>
> I don't really understand your contrasted example here. Can you explain:
>
>     "...we can do without not just an option but a feature to omit
> --first-parent..."
>
> Again thanks for the feedback.

I'm having some difficulty with the tests. What it looks like is that
the test repository is created by calling test-lib.sh at the top. Then
by the time the commands after that are run, it's inside the temp
repository.

At the bottom of t4041, I add this:

    test_create_repo sm3 &&
    git add sm3 &&
    cd sm3 &&
    echo > foo.txt &&
    git add foo.txt &&
    git commit -m 'foo.txt' >/dev/null &&
    git checkout -b topic >/dev/null &&
    echo > topic.txt &&
    git add topic.txt &&
    git commit -m 'topic.txt' >/dev/null &&
    git checkout master >/dev/null &&
    git merge --no-ff --no-edit topic >/dev/null &&
    cd .. &&
    git diff --submodule=log sm3

But this does not work as I expect. How do I add a submodule and then
simulate creation of branches, commits, and merges, prior to running
code in "text_expect_success"?

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Junio C Hamano]

Robert Dailey <rcdailey.lists@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Robert Dailey <rcdailey.lists@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> In the meantime I'd like to ask, do we even need to add an option for
>>> this? What if we just make `diff.submodule log` not use
>>> --first-parent? This seems like a backward compatible change in of
>>> itself.
>>
>> Why?  People have relied on submodule-log not to include all the
>> noise coming from individual commits on side branches and instead
>> appreciated seeing only the overview by merges of side branch topics
>> being listed---why is regressing the system to inconvenience these
>> existing users "a backward compatible change"?
>
> Backward compatible in the sense that it does not break existing
> functionality....

And adding one-line-per-commit from side branches does break
existing functionality.  You seem to be arguing that more
information is always good and does not break existing
functionality, but summarizing by omitting irrelevant details *is* a
feature.  Do you honestly believe that a change to make the full
"log -p" output in submodule log be a "backward compatible" change??

>     > Merge branch "topic1" into "master"
>     > Merge branch "topic2" into "master"
>     > Merge branch "origin/develop" into "master"
>     > Merge branch "topic3" into "master"

It is not a real argument; it is something you can fix by naming
your branches more sensibly, which would make you a better developer
regardless of how submodule-log is shown.

>>> And it's simpler to implement. I can't think of a good
>>> justification to add more settings to an already hugely complex
>>> configuration scheme for such a minor difference in behavior.
>>
>> Careful, as that argument can cut both ways.  If it is so a minor
>> difference in behaviour, perhaps we can do without not just an
>> option but a feature to omit --first-parent here.  That would be
>> even simpler to implement, as you do not have to do anything.
>
> I don't really understand your contrasted example here. Can you explain:
>
>     "...we can do without not just an option but a feature to omit
> --first-parent..."

I am not sure how to phrase that any easier. Sorry.

Assuming that you consider output with and without --first-parent
does not make much of a difference (i.e. "minor difference in
behaviour"), instead of dropping --first-parent unconditionally,
like you seem to be pushing with the argument, we can
unconditionally keep the --first-parent and do not change anything.
The end result would not make much of a difference either way, and
not doing anything is much simpler than dropping --first-parent.

Hopefully you can see how absurd that line of reasoning is.  So do
not make the same argument to push for changing the behaviour
unconditionally.

If you think the new behaviour can help _some_ users, then you would
need the feature and a knob to enable it.

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Robert Dailey]

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Robert Dailey <rcdailey.lists@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Robert Dailey <rcdailey.lists@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> In the meantime I'd like to ask, do we even need to add an option for
>>>> this? What if we just make `diff.submodule log` not use
>>>> --first-parent? This seems like a backward compatible change in of
>>>> itself.
>>>
>>> Why?  People have relied on submodule-log not to include all the
>>> noise coming from individual commits on side branches and instead
>>> appreciated seeing only the overview by merges of side branch topics
>>> being listed---why is regressing the system to inconvenience these
>>> existing users "a backward compatible change"?
>>
>> Backward compatible in the sense that it does not break existing
>> functionality....
>
> And adding one-line-per-commit from side branches does break
> existing functionality.  You seem to be arguing that more
> information is always good and does not break existing
> functionality, but summarizing by omitting irrelevant details *is* a
> feature.  Do you honestly believe that a change to make the full
> "log -p" output in submodule log be a "backward compatible" change??
>
>>     > Merge branch "topic1" into "master"
>>     > Merge branch "topic2" into "master"
>>     > Merge branch "origin/develop" into "master"
>>     > Merge branch "topic3" into "master"
>
> It is not a real argument; it is something you can fix by naming
> your branches more sensibly, which would make you a better developer
> regardless of how submodule-log is shown.

I just use git, I don't have the deep technical understanding of its
implementation as you may have. From my perspective I can't think of
how this breaks backward compatibility, or perhaps your definition of
backward compatibility does not align with mine.

And please don't over generalize and misconvey what I said. I am not
saying more information is always good. Did you not read anything I
wrote?

Also good branch names may help but that doesn't go into detail and
explain features that may have been sitting on a topic branch for
weeks. That's not a practical solution to the problem. Also branch
names do not determine or influence the skill and quality of a
developer, as you seem to imply.

I'll do us both a favor and end the discussion here, as I do not feel
you are being very patient or welcoming in the discussion. I sense
frustration on your side.

>>>> And it's simpler to implement. I can't think of a good
>>>> justification to add more settings to an already hugely complex
>>>> configuration scheme for such a minor difference in behavior.
>>>
>>> Careful, as that argument can cut both ways.  If it is so a minor
>>> difference in behaviour, perhaps we can do without not just an
>>> option but a feature to omit --first-parent here.  That would be
>>> even simpler to implement, as you do not have to do anything.
>>
>> I don't really understand your contrasted example here. Can you explain:
>>
>>     "...we can do without not just an option but a feature to omit
>> --first-parent..."
>
> I am not sure how to phrase that any easier. Sorry.

You mean you don't want to? That's fine, if you don't have the will or
patience to explain then I won't bother caring.

> Assuming that you consider output with and without --first-parent
> does not make much of a difference (i.e. "minor difference in
> behaviour"), instead of dropping --first-parent unconditionally,
> like you seem to be pushing with the argument, we can
> unconditionally keep the --first-parent and do not change anything.
> The end result would not make much of a difference either way, and
> not doing anything is much simpler than dropping --first-parent.
>
> Hopefully you can see how absurd that line of reasoning is.  So do
> not make the same argument to push for changing the behaviour
> unconditionally.
>
> If you think the new behaviour can help _some_ users, then you would
> need the feature and a knob to enable it.

First of all, you keep calling this an argument. Perhaps it is for
you, since you're being absurdly rude with me and impatient with the
discussion. This is a brainstorming session. My suggestions may not
seem rational or make sense, but this is natural since I am ignorant
of the finer details of the application.

You're really just overanalyzing my statements from a nonsensical
perspective. I am talking about not adding more settings to an already
complex set of settings. I am not justifying my feature. I think the
feature is just as justified as everything else. Git is FULL of tons
of little options to cater to niche workflows.

I am not fighting against having another option. In fact, that was my
idea to begin with. I am investigating and trying to discuss all
possible approaches and perspectives.

Your attitude is not very welcoming to those that wish to contribute
to the project. In fact, because of your attitude towards me, I will
kindly see myself out. I do not have time to spend my free time
dealing with this nonsense and irrational rudeness on a mailing list.

Thanks to Heiko and others that were more welcoming and kind.

Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits

[Heiko Voigt]

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 03:25:31PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Robert Dailey <rcdailey.lists@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>> Robert Dailey <rcdailey.lists@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> In the meantime I'd like to ask, do we even need to add an option for
> >>>> this? What if we just make `diff.submodule log` not use
> >>>> --first-parent? This seems like a backward compatible change in of
> >>>> itself.
> >>>
> >>> Why?  People have relied on submodule-log not to include all the
> >>> noise coming from individual commits on side branches and instead
> >>> appreciated seeing only the overview by merges of side branch topics
> >>> being listed---why is regressing the system to inconvenience these
> >>> existing users "a backward compatible change"?
> >>
> >> Backward compatible in the sense that it does not break existing
> >> functionality....
> >
> > And adding one-line-per-commit from side branches does break
> > existing functionality.  You seem to be arguing that more
> > information is always good and does not break existing
> > functionality, but summarizing by omitting irrelevant details *is* a
> > feature.  Do you honestly believe that a change to make the full
> > "log -p" output in submodule log be a "backward compatible" change??
> >
> >>     > Merge branch "topic1" into "master"
> >>     > Merge branch "topic2" into "master"
> >>     > Merge branch "origin/develop" into "master"
> >>     > Merge branch "topic3" into "master"
> >
> > It is not a real argument; it is something you can fix by naming
> > your branches more sensibly, which would make you a better developer
> > regardless of how submodule-log is shown.
> 
> I just use git, I don't have the deep technical understanding of its
> implementation as you may have. From my perspective I can't think of
> how this breaks backward compatibility, or perhaps your definition of
> backward compatibility does not align with mine.

Yes from your perspective and thats the only thing what Junio is
criticising: Others might have a different perspective and thats why
this change is not backwards compatible in a general sense. For you it
might be but git is a very general tool.

> And please don't over generalize and misconvey what I said. I am not
> saying more information is always good. Did you not read anything I
> wrote?

I do not see where Junio did that. The only thing he was trying to do is
give an example why changing the default is not backwards compatible.

> Also good branch names may help but that doesn't go into detail and
> explain features that may have been sitting on a topic branch for
> weeks. That's not a practical solution to the problem. Also branch
> names do not determine or influence the skill and quality of a
> developer, as you seem to imply.

Many people use the feature branch name as a kind of headline for the
topic. So in that sense it explains or at least gives a hint what that
feature was about. E.g. if you have the roadmap of a library you are
using in mind and want to know whether the update you are about to
commit contains a certain feature you were waiting for, that headline
can be enough.

You are right: Good commit messages and general naming does
functionality wise not determine your development skills in the short
term. On the other hand: In my experience good naming skills usually
align with good development skills. Long term it also means that your
code (and history) is easier to understand once others want to read your
code and build on it.

> I'll do us both a favor and end the discussion here, as I do not feel
> you are being very patient or welcoming in the discussion. I sense
> frustration on your side.

This is a typical situation which can happen in textual communication.
You read something which is not there. A thing that happened to me as
well when I submitted my first patch on a mailing list. But when I read
the conversation years later I realized it was not really that offending
as I experienced it. A general rule: People automatically appreciate
what you do when they criticise to you. Criticism means that you have
done something good (and worth criticising) but they want to make it
better. I think viewing it that way helps to not take arguments
personally.

> >>>> And it's simpler to implement. I can't think of a good
> >>>> justification to add more settings to an already hugely complex
> >>>> configuration scheme for such a minor difference in behavior.
> >>>
> >>> Careful, as that argument can cut both ways.  If it is so a minor
> >>> difference in behaviour, perhaps we can do without not just an
> >>> option but a feature to omit --first-parent here.  That would be
> >>> even simpler to implement, as you do not have to do anything.
> >>
> >> I don't really understand your contrasted example here. Can you explain:
> >>
> >>     "...we can do without not just an option but a feature to omit
> >> --first-parent..."
> >
> > I am not sure how to phrase that any easier. Sorry.
> 
> You mean you don't want to? That's fine, if you don't have the will or
> patience to explain then I won't bother caring.

And the rephrase follows...

> > Assuming that you consider output with and without --first-parent
> > does not make much of a difference (i.e. "minor difference in
> > behaviour"), instead of dropping --first-parent unconditionally,
> > like you seem to be pushing with the argument, we can
> > unconditionally keep the --first-parent and do not change anything.
> > The end result would not make much of a difference either way, and
> > not doing anything is much simpler than dropping --first-parent.
> >
> > Hopefully you can see how absurd that line of reasoning is.  So do
> > not make the same argument to push for changing the behaviour
> > unconditionally.
> >
> > If you think the new behaviour can help _some_ users, then you would
> > need the feature and a knob to enable it.
> 
> First of all, you keep calling this an argument. Perhaps it is for
> you, since you're being absurdly rude with me and impatient with the
> discussion. This is a brainstorming session. My suggestions may not
> seem rational or make sense, but this is natural since I am ignorant
> of the finer details of the application.
> 
> You're really just overanalyzing my statements from a nonsensical
> perspective. I am talking about not adding more settings to an already
> complex set of settings. I am not justifying my feature. I think the
> feature is just as justified as everything else. Git is FULL of tons
> of little options to cater to niche workflows.
> 
> I am not fighting against having another option. In fact, that was my
> idea to begin with. I am investigating and trying to discuss all
> possible approaches and perspectives.

Junios argument is quite absurd, but that is just to prove why we need
another option, nothing else. See above...

> Your attitude is not very welcoming to those that wish to contribute
> to the project. In fact, because of your attitude towards me, I will
> kindly see myself out. I do not have time to spend my free time
> dealing with this nonsense and irrational rudeness on a mailing list.
> 
> Thanks to Heiko and others that were more welcoming and kind.

I hope you reread this conversation more calmly and come to the same
realisation as me with my first patch. But opposed to me, maybe continue
to stay with the project.

Cheers Heiko