2009/11/1 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>: > Erick Mattos <erick.mattos@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> The new --claim option is meant to solve this need by regenerating the >> timestamp and setting as new author the committer or the one specified >> on --author option. > > Thanks. > > I don't think "claim" is a good name for this option. It makes me go > "huh, I do not get it. What are you claiming? Claiming that this is the > correct fix?" > > Renaming it to "claim-authorship" may avoid that confusion, but it is too > long. > > How about naming this option "mine"? Makes sense: "mine" then. I felt you haven't like the name. >> @@ -61,14 +61,19 @@ OPTIONS >> -C <commit>:: >> --reuse-message=<commit>:: >> Take an existing commit object, and reuse the log message >> - and the authorship information (including the timestamp) >> - when creating the commit. >> + and the authorship information when creating the commit. > > I don't think this is a good change. > > When you use the new option, the author name, email and timestamp are > ignored, and when you don't, they are all used. > > To new users who are taught to first set user.name and user.email via > configuration variables, the phrase "authorship information" would mean > <name, email> pair, and the explanation in the parentheses helps to avoid > a misunderstanding that these two are the only things that are copied. > > I would suggest you keep the original text. I think it is pointless but if you say so. >> +--claim:: >> + When used with -C/-c/--amend options, declare that the >> + authorship of the resulting commit now belongs of the committer. >> + This also renews the author timestamp. Therefore this option >> + sets the use of only the message from the original commit. > > I don't understand/parse the last sentence; I don't think it is necessary, > either. Just trying to clarify. I think people that would be searching for renewing timestamp as I was would find it easier to identify the correct option. >> diff --git a/builtin-commit.c b/builtin-commit.c >> index c395cbf..919e3fe 100644 >> --- a/builtin-commit.c >> +++ b/builtin-commit.c >> @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ static const char *template_file; >> static char *edit_message, *use_message; >> static char *author_name, *author_email, *author_date; >> static int all, edit_flag, also, interactive, only, amend, signoff; >> -static int quiet, verbose, no_verify, allow_empty, dry_run; >> +static int quiet, verbose, no_verify, allow_empty, dry_run, claim; > > Even if you name the command option "claim" in order to keep it short, I > think it is a bad idea to name the variable "claim", because it doesn't > say _what_ you are claiming and is confusing. Naming it claim_authorship > would be better. Changed to mine. >> + OPT_BOOLEAN(0, "claim", &claim, "acquire authorship and restamp time of resulting commit"), > > It is unclear from where it is "acquire"-ing, nor what "restamp" means. > > Here are my attempts to come up with better wording: > > "ignore author and timestamp of the original commit (used with -C/-c/--amend)" > "the commit is authored by me now (used with -C/-c/--amend)" What about "take new timestamp and make me new author (with -C/-c/--amend)"? > The latter will work well if the option is renamed to "--mine". > > What should happen when the user uses --claim without -C/-c/--amend? > > % git commit --claim > > Should you detect an error? Does your code do so? Do you have a test > that catches this error? You say it. In the first patch of mine I was testing for --(new|old)-timestamp. Now I thought it was unnecessary because the normal behavior is documented and by comparison with other options which does not test combinations extensively. But it is just code to add if you want... > What should happen when the user uses --author and --claim at the same time? > > % git commit --claim --author='Erick Mattos <eric@mattos>' -C HEAD > > Should you detect an error? Does your code do so? Do you have a test > that catches this error? It works as intended. Both together. >> diff --git a/t/t7509-commit.sh b/t/t7509-commit.sh >> new file mode 100755 >> index 0000000..62fb00f >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/t/t7509-commit.sh >> @@ -0,0 +1,87 @@ >> +#!/bin/sh >> +# >> +# Copyright (c) 2009 Erick Mattos >> +# >> + >> +test_description='git commit >> + >> +Tests for --claim option on a commit.' >> + >> +. ./test-lib.sh >> + >> +TEST_FILE="$PWD"/foo > > Why does this have to be given as a full path, not just "foo"? Templating from other scripts. Ask them... :-) >> +test_expect_success '-C option should be working' ' > > Every test is about "should be working", so you are wasting 16 letters or > so without giving any useful information. > > Say something like "-C without --claim uses the author from the old commit" here. > >> + echo "Initial" > "$TEST_FILE" && >> + git add "$TEST_FILE" && >> + git commit -m "Initial Commit" --author Frigate\ \<flying@xxxxxxxxxx\> && >> + sleep 1 && > > If you use "test_tick", you don't have to slow the test down. You use > "test_tick" before you commit to increment the time. Look at t6036 for an > example. Easy change. >> + echo "Test 1" >> "$TEST_FILE" && >> + git add "$TEST_FILE" && >> + git commit -C HEAD && >> + git cat-file -p HEAD^ | sed -e '/^parent/d' -e '/^tree/d' -e '/^committer/d' > commit_1 && >> + git cat-file -p HEAD | sed -e '/^parent/d' -e '/^tree/d' -e '/^committer/d' > commit_2 && >> + cmp commit_1 commit_2 >> +' > > Use "test_cmp" instead, so that errors can be seen easily when somebody > breaks this new feature. Easy change. >> +test_expect_success '-C option with --claim is working properly' ' > > Again, "working properly" is a meaningless thing to say because that is > what all tests check. "-C with --claim makes me the author" would be > better. > >> + sleep 1 && >> + echo "Test 2" >> "$TEST_FILE" && >> + git add "$TEST_FILE" && >> + git commit -C HEAD^ --claim && >> + git cat-file -p HEAD^ | grep '^author' > commit_1 && >> + git cat-file -p HEAD | grep '^author' > commit_2 && >> + test_must_fail cmp commit_1 commit_2 > > This test shouldn't be happy with any random author information that > happens to be different from the original. The purpose of --claim option > is to take the authorship, make it mine (or whoever is specified with > GIT_AUTHOR_NAME or user.name or uid-to-gecos), so the last cmp (again, it > should use test_cmp) should make sure that the author is 'A U Thor', not > just being different from "Frigate" or whatever. It should check email > and timestamp as well, of course. Good point but the text imho is a little unnecessary because the change could only be to user.name, user.email, ... But if want that it will be an easy change too. >> +' >> + >> +test_expect_success '-c option should be working' ' >> + echo "Initial" > "$TEST_FILE" && >> + git add "$TEST_FILE" && >> + git commit -m "Initial Commit" --author Frigate\ \<flying@xxxxxxxxxx\> && >> + sleep 1 && >> + echo "Test 3" >> "$TEST_FILE" && >> + git add "$TEST_FILE" && >> + git commit -c HEAD <<EOF >> + "Changed" >> + EOF && > > What editor is reading this "Changed"? > Nobody cares... Just a text to change the file. -- 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