Hi Junio, On Sat, 7 Jul 2018, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Sat, 7 Jul 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > > >> Does the "gitgitgadget" thing lie on the Date: e-mail header? > > > > > > No, GitGitGadget takes the literal output from `git format-patch`, as far > > > as I can tell. So if at all, it is `format-patch` that is lying. > > > > format-patch faithfully records the fact about the commit that is > > made into the patch. How pieces of information should (or should > > not) be used depends on the purpose of the application that uses > > its output. > > I guess this is one of the fallouts for abusing the `format-patch|am` > dance for `rebase--am`. Speaking of GitGitGadget: I just encoutered a problem with your `refs/notes/amlog` and I hope you can help me with that. Concretely, I want GitGitGadget to be able to identify the commit that corresponds to a given mail that contained a patch (if it ever made it into `pu`), to automate all kinds of tedious things that I currently have to perform manually. And here I hit a block: I am looking for the commit corresponding to aca087479b35cbcbd7c84c7ca3bcf556133d0548.1530274571.git.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx When I ask `git notes --ref=refs/notes/gitster-amlog show 4cec3986f017d84c8d6a2c4233d2eba4a3ffa60d` (the SHA-1 is the one corresponding to `Message-Id: <...>` for that mail), it insists on outputting 5902152ab02291af4454f24a8ccaf2adddefc306 However, I cannot find that commit anywhere. When I look for the commit in the same manual, tedious way that I want to automate, I find that it *is* in `pu`, but as 5cf8e064747be2026bb23be37f84f2f0b2a31781 Even curiouser: when I now ask for the commit notes for both of those SHA-1s, I get back the correct, same Message-Id *for both of them*, which makes me think that it was recorded correctly, but then overwritten due to some process I don't understand. Would you be able to shed light into this? Thank you, Dscho
