From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF7A201C8 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:17:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752328AbdKNJRQ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:17:16 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:43377 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751466AbdKNJRM (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:17:12 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE2A7AAB5; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:17:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] am: semi working --cover-at-tip To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org References: <948b19c2-9f2d-de9d-1e0a-6681dc9317a9@suse.de> From: Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <325a3a6f-9916-29cb-48c0-69aa59e5913d@suse.de> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:17:10 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/56.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Language: fr-xx-classique+reforme1990 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Le 14/11/2017 à 07:00, Junio C Hamano a écrit : > Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin writes: > >> if (!git_config_get_bool("commit.gpgsign", &gpgsign)) >> state->sign_commit = gpgsign ? "" : NULL; >> + >> } > Please give at least a cursory proof-reading before sending things > out. > >> @@ -1106,14 +1131,6 @@ static void am_next(struct am_state *state) >> >> oidclr(&state->orig_commit); >> unlink(am_path(state, "original-commit")); >> - >> - if (!get_oid("HEAD", &head)) >> - write_state_text(state, "abort-safety", oid_to_hex(&head)); >> - else >> - write_state_text(state, "abort-safety", ""); >> - >> - state->cur++; >> - write_state_count(state, "next", state->cur); > Moving these lines to a later part of the source file is fine, but > can you do so as a separate preparatory patch that does not change > anything else? That would unclutter the main patch that adds the > feature, allowing better reviews from reviewers. > > The hunk below... Sure. I usually do all this later in the process. >> +/** >> + * Increments the patch pointer, and cleans am_state for the application of the >> + * next patch. >> + */ >> +static void am_next(struct am_state *state) >> +{ >> + struct object_id head; >> + >> + /* Flush the cover letter if needed */ >> + if (state->cover_at_tip == 1 && >> + state->series_len > 0 && >> + state->series_id == state->series_len && >> + state->cover_id > 0) >> + do_apply_cover(state); >> + >> + am_clean(state); >> + >> + if (!get_oid("HEAD", &head)) >> + write_state_text(state, "abort-safety", oid_to_hex(&head)); >> + else >> + write_state_text(state, "abort-safety", ""); >> + >> + state->cur++; >> + write_state_count(state, "next", state->cur); >> +} > ... if you followed that "separate preparatory step" approach, would > show clearly that you added the logic to call do_apply_cover() when > we transition after applying the Nth patch of a series with N patches, > as all the existing lines will show only as unchanged context lines. Agreed. The split of am_clean should probably have its own commit too. > > By the way, don't we want to sanity check state->last (which we > learn by running "git mailsplit" that splits the incoming mbox into > pieces and counts the number of messages) against state->series_len? > Sometimes people send [PATCH 0-6/6], a 6-patch series with a cover > letter, and then follow-up with [PATCH 7/6]. For somebody like me, > it would be more convenient if the above code (more-or-less) ignored > series_len and called do_apply_cover() after applying the last patch > (which would be [PATCH 7/6]) based on what state->last says. I thought about that. Is there a use case for cover after the last patch works and removes the need to touch am_next (can be done out of the loop in am_run). If that multiple series in a mbox is something people do, your concern could be solved by flushing the cover when state->series_id goes back to a lower value. Nicolas