On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> That was my initial thought too, but then I realized that having the >> 'heuristics' (although a very braindead one) in mailinfo makes more >> sense because otherwise StGIT patch autodetection would only work when >> applying a whole series, and not when applying a single (or a few) >> patches. > > The above is very selfish---what if somebody else wanted to add a feature > to grok a non-mailbox input to the same codepath, and it is not a StGIT > patch? > > That is what I called "bad taste". > > The same comment may apply to the rest of your response. "This hack is > good enough for _my_ use case; I do not care if my change makes life > harder for others to build on top of my patch" is not what I want to see. Sorry, that's totally not the idea was trying to convey. In fact, just after sending the email I went back to the code to look for a better solution (I should have probably also made the first try a RFC). I did feel it was necessary to explain the reasons for the simplicity of the patches, especially since it gave me the chance to raises some points that I thought were worth discussing, such as the matter of where to place patch type autodetection. -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html