Re: [RFC-PATCH v2 2/2] send-email: quote-email quotes the message body

[Tom Russello <tom.russello@grenoble-inp.org>]

On 05/28/16 17:01, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> Currently, `send-email` without `--compose` implies `--annotate`.
>
> I don't get it. Did you mean s/without/with/? Even if so, this is not
> exactly true: "git send-email --compose -1" will open the editor only
> for the cover-letter, while adding --annotate will also open it for the
> patch.

We meant that the default behavior of `--quote-email` (i.e. without
--compose enabled) will open the editor with the given patches in
argument and will quote the message body in the first one.

> (Note: we discussed this off-list already, but I'll try to summarize my
> thoughts here)
>
> I don't have strong opinion on this, but I think there's a difference
> between launching the editor directly on the input patch files
> (resulting in _user_'s edit being done directly on them) and having the
> script modify it in-place (resulting in automatic changes done directly
> on the user's files).
>
> I usually use "git send-email" directly without using "git
> format-patch", so I'm not the best juge. But I can imagine a flow like
>
> 1) run "git send-email *.patch"
>
> 2) start editting
>
> 3) notice there's something wrong, give up for now (answer 'q' when git
>    send-email prompts for confirmation, or kill it via Control-C in a
>    terminal)
>
> 4) run "git send-email *.patch" again
>
> 5) be happy that changes done at 2) are still there.
>
> With --quote-email, it's different. The scenario above would result in
>
> 5') WTF, why is the email quoted twice?

Actually the Control-C during the edition will cancel all the
annotations written (including the cited email).

> Unfortunately, I don't really have a solution for this. My first thought
> was that we should copy the files to a temporary location before
> starting the editor (that what I'm used to when using "git send-email"
> without "git format-patch"), but that would prevent 5) above.

It's already what we did: the first original patch is copied in a
temporary file. However, if the edition went well (i.e. the editor
closed by the user), the temporary file will erase the original one.

>> @@ -109,7 +109,10 @@ is not set, this will be prompted for.
>>  --quote-email=<email_file>::
>>  	Reply to the given email and automatically populate the "To:",
"Cc:" and
>>  	"In-Reply-To:" fields. If `--compose` is set, this will also fill the
>> -	subject field with "Re: [<email_file>'s subject]".
>> +	subject field with "Re: [<email_file>'s subject]" and quote the
message body
>> +	of <email_file>.
>
> I'd add "in the introductory message".

Agreed.

>> +	while (<$fh>) {
>> +		# Only for files containing crlf line endings
>> +		s/\r//g;
>
> The comment doesn't really say what it does.
>
> What about "turn crlf line endings into lf-only"?

Yes, I completely agree this suggestion.

> When writing comment, always try to ask the question "why?" more than
> "what?". This part is possibly controversial, think about a contributor
> finding this piece of code later without having followed the current
> conversation. He'd probably expect an explanation about why you need a
> temp file here and not elsewhere.

Thank you for the advice, I'll keep it in mind.

>> +	open my $c, "<", $original_file
>> +	or die "Failed to open $original_file : " . $!;
>> +
>> +	open my $c2, ">", $tmp_file
>> +		or die "Failed to open $tmp_file : " . $!;
>
> No space before :.

Sorry, I copied the previous error messages.

> When the spec says "if --compose ... then ...", "after the triple-dash",
> and "in the first patch", one would expect at least one test with
> --compose and one without, something to check that the insertion was
> done below the triple-dash, and one test with two patches, checking that
> the second patch is not altered by --quote-email.

Yes, indeed. I'll add these tests in the next version.

Thank you for the review.