From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0222DC6FD1E for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 09:54:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229984AbjCJJys (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2023 04:54:48 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60028 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229598AbjCJJyr (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2023 04:54:47 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56AD656530 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 01:54:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 19454 invoked by uid 109); 10 Mar 2023 09:54:45 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 09:54:45 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 10641 invoked by uid 111); 10 Mar 2023 09:54:45 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 04:54:45 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 04:54:44 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Alejandro Colomar , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: Better suggestions when git-am(1) fails Message-ID: References: <897c200c-afb3-ceb4-bf44-9af651f5feb4@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 01:53:55PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > So here's a patch series which I think should help with the sending > > side. Most of it is just filling in gaps in the code and tests for > > current features. Patch 4 is the actual change. Patch 5 adds an > > equivalent option just for format-patch. I'm not convinced anybody > > really wants it (which is why I split it out), but it's probably worth > > doing just in case. > > > > [1/5]: diff: factor out src/dst prefix setup > > [2/5]: t4013: add tests for diff prefix options > > [3/5]: diff: add --default-prefix option > > [4/5]: format-patch: do not respect diff.noprefix > > [5/5]: format-patch: add format.noprefix option > > I've reviewed these five changes, and while I am not 100% sold to > the idea that we should force our -p1 worldview to those who choose > to use diff.noprefix for whatever reason, I think these patches > describe what they want to do and implement it in a very readable > way. > > Thanks. Queued. Thanks for looking at them. Let's see if we get any other comments on the direction, and then I may re-roll. Even if we don't do 4 or 5, I think the extra tests are worth adding. Either way I'd probably drop 3 (in favor of --src-prefix) and squash its tests into 2. Patch 1 isn't worthwhile if we don't do 3-5, since we wouldn't be adding any new callers of the helpers. If we do proceed, I'd suggest trying to cook in 'next' for a long time to get comment. Though I think both you and I are pessimistic that we get a wide variety of user testing that way. -Peff