Hi Stefan, On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Stefan Beller wrote: > > A tangent. > > > > Because this "-- " is a conventional signature separator, MUAs like > > Emacs message-mode seems to omit everything below it from the quote > > while responding, making it cumbersome to comment on the tbdiff. > > > > Something to think about if somebody is contemplating on adding more > > to format-patch's cover letter. > > +cc Eric who needs to think about this tangent, then. > https://public-inbox.org/git/20180530080325.37520-1-sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I think this is just a natural fall-out from the users' choice of mail program. Personally, I have no difficulty commenting on anything below the `--` separator. FWIW GitGitGadget follows the example of the `base-commit` footer and places this information *above* the `--` separator. > > >> 1: d4e1ec45740 ! 1: bbc8697a8ca git-submodule.sh: align error reporting for update mode to use path > > >> @@ -6,7 +6,6 @@ > > >> on its path, so let's do that for invalid update modes, too. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >> - Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> > > >> diff --git a/git-submodule.sh b/git-submodule.sh > > >> --- a/git-submodule.sh > > > > This is quite unfortunate. I wonder if it is easy to tell > > range-diff that certain differences in the log message are to be > > ignored so that we can show that the first patch is unchanged in a > > case like this. This series has 4 really changed ones with 2 > > otherwise unchanged ones shown all as changed, which is not too bad, > > but for a series like sb/diff-colro-move-more reroll that has 9 > > patches, out of only two have real updated patches, showing > > otherwise unchanged 7 as changed like this hunk does would make the > > cover letter useless. It is a shame that adding range-diff to the > > cover does have so much potential. > > Actually I thought it was really cool, i.e. when using your queued branch > instead of my last sent branch, I can see any edits *you* did > (including fixing up typos or applying at slightly different bases). This is probably a good indicator that the practice on insisting on signing off on every patch, rather than just the merge commit, is something to re-think. Those are real changes relative to the original commit, after all, and if they are not desired, they should not be made. > The sign offs are a bit unfortunate as they are repetitive. > I have two conflicting points of view on that: > > (A) This sign off is inherent to the workflow. So we could > change the workflow, i.e. you pull series instead of applying them. > I think this "more in git, less in email" workflow would find supporters, > such as DScho (cc'd). > > The downside is that (1) you'd have to change your > workflow, i.e. instead of applying the patches at the base you think is > best for maintenance you'd have to tell the author "please rebase to $X"; > but that also has upsides, such as "If you want to have your series integrated > please merge with $Y and $Z" (looking at the object store stuff). > > The other (2) downside is that everyone else (authors, reviewers) have > to adapt as well. For authors this might be easy to adapt (push instead > of sending email sounds like a win). For reviewers we'd need to have > an easy way to review things "stored in git" and not exposed via email, > which is not obvious how to do. > > (B) The other point of view that I can offer is that we teach range-diff > to ignore certain patterns. Maybe in combination with interpret-trailers > this can be an easy configurable thing, or even a default to ignore > all sign offs? I thought about that myself. The reason: I was surprised, a couple of times, when I realized long after the fact, that some of my patches were changed without my knowledge nor blessing before being merged into `master`. To allow me to protest in a timely manner, I wanted to teach GitGitGadget (which is the main reason I work on range-diff, as you undoubtedly suspect by now) to warn me about such instances. The range-diff patch series has simmered too long at this stage, though, and I did not try to address such a "ignore <regex>" feature *specifically* so that the range-diff command could be available sooner than later. I already missed one major version, please refrain from forcing me to miss another one. Ciao, Dscho
