On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:03:39PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:48:22PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > Repost, sorry about the noise. > >> > > >> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 05:36:45PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >> >> Hi Michael, > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > So far I only see examples of adding footers. If that's all we can think > >> >> > up, why code in all this genericity? > >> >> > >> >> Because as far as I can see, the only benefitor of your patches would be > >> >> you. > >> >> > >> >> Ciao, > >> >> Johannes > >> > > >> > This seems unlikely. Just merging the patches won't benefit me directly > >> > - I have maintained them in my tree for a couple of years now with very > >> > little effort. For sure, I could benefit if they get merged and then > >> > someone improves them further - that was the point of posting them - but > >> > then I'm not the only benefitor. > >> > > >> > The workflow including getting acks for patches by email is not handled > >> > well by upstream git right now. It would surprise me if no one uses it > >> > if it's upstream, as you seem to suggest. But maybe most people moved > >> > on and just do pull requests instead. > >> > >> I doubt I would use this in its current form myself. > >> > >> Patch series I receive are all queued on their own separate topic > >> branches, and having to switch branches only to create a fake empty > >> commit to record received Acked-by and Reviewed-by is a chore that > >> serves only half of what needs to be done. > > > > Interesting. An empty commit would be rather easy to create on any > > branch, not just the current one, using git-commit-tree. > > This "modify a branch without checking-it out" makes me think of "git > notes". It may make sense to teach "git rebase -i" to look for notes in > rebased commits and append them to the commit message when applying. > Just an idea, not necessarily a good one ;-). Two things making it harder - machinery to look for commits is part of git rebase anyway - notes are expected to come after --- at the moment > > Does it sounds interesting if I teach > > git ack to get an active branch as a parameter? > > I think "ack" is not a good name for this feature: you use it to append > "Acked-by", but it can be used to append any trailer (for example, > Reviewed-by: would make complete sense too). Yes - I use it to append all trailers. > I think using a better name > would help the discussion (to remove the "it's my use-case" biais). > Perhaps "append"? Or "trailer". > -- > Matthieu Moy > http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- 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