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=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 AD1A920987 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 19:17:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752355AbcJCTRj (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:17:39 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:53340 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752264AbcJCTRh (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:17:37 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033FE42554; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:17:36 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=ABSUub5t4LP/n5vESZKUOPGyh1E=; b=gKo1lm P91m/3D4GCZis4wQrpqLUZMp4NJWrKO+rTlk0p3qqpXdLW2g6NmN5Ofaanta0twf E4qngSUkTDqRvMomQ3BCdQpSQnjxhdl1zDSD3iasznE6PuHzm4sGE22JXe2AgTbb U3hPUsGsR/RDJQYwaEanfOgqyAJPU8J1XcMt8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=bQn2WohzU0YPDBwOoC4Tegycb05kpLGU ZhS1bgQWRHOtd1jNhrKW45VvYp5Lo0CcX+evcV6+gt0qC9PLa4iOqpNnckekQ16r 3221dpbGAVX3pNVJujnsr/InUn3CLdq7BvB0gyETIc9lZioP3JhuirTH+s2PjO2o wLHlvwh6640= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEFC342553; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:17:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70B7D42552; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:17:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Christian Couder Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/2] place cherry pick line below commit title References: <11e41a94-df8c-494a-584b-e2bc8da2de3a@google.com> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 12:17:33 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Jonathan Tan's message of "Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:44:54 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0A765ED4-899E-11E6-AA41-EAAE7A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: > That sounds reasonable to me. Would a patch set to implement this new > trailer block heuristic (in both sequencer and trailer) be reasonable? > And if yes, should trailer know about the "(cherry picked from" > prefix? (I can see it both ways - knowing about the "(cherry picked > from" prefix would make it consistent with sequencer, but it seems > like a detail that it shouldn't know about. Writing > "Cherry-picked-from:" instead probably wouldn't solve our problem > because, for backwards compatibility, we would still need to support > reading the old format.) If we were to go that route, I'd suggest keeping the historical practice supported, exactly because you would need to be prepared to cherry-pick an old commit. It may be necessary for the code to analize the lines in a block identified as "likely to be a trailing block" more carefully, though. The example 59f0aa94 in the message you are responding to has "Link 1:" that consists of 3 physical lines. An instruction to interpret-trailers to add a new one _after_ "Link-$n:" may have to treat these as a single logical line and do the addition after them, i.e. before "Link 2:" line, for example. I also saw Signed-off-by: Some body (some comment that extends to the next line without being indented) Sined-off-by: Some body Else where the only clue that the second line is logically a part of the first one was the balancing of parentheses (or [brakets]). To accomodate real-world use cases, you may have to take into account a lot more than the strict rfc-822 style "line folding".