On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:14 AM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 30/07/18 10:29, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > It was only after I diagnosed and fixed these bugs that I thought to > > check 'pu' and discovered that Akinori MUSHA already made a stab[1] at > > fixing one of the three bugs which this series fixes. Akinori's fix has > > the somewhat undesirable property that it adds an extra blank line to > > the end of the script, as Phillip correctly pointed out in review[2]. > > Patch 2/2 of this series has the more "correct" fix, in addition to > > fixing another bug. > > > > Moreover, patch 2/2 of this series provides a more thorough fix overall > > than Akinori, so it may make sense to replace his patch with this > > series, though perhaps keep the test his patch adds to augment the > > strict test of the "author" header added by this series. > > Johannes and I have some fixups for Akinori's patch on the branch > fix-t3403-author-script-test at https://github.com/phillipwood/git I don't see a branch with that name there. There are a couple "wip" branches, however, named wip/fix-t3403-author-script-test and wip/fix-t3404-author-script-test. I'm guessing you wanted me to look at the former. > That branch also contains a fix for the bad quoting of names with "'" in > them. I think it would be good to somehow try and combine this series > with those patches. It appears that your patches are fixing issues and a test outside the issues fixed by my series (aside from the one line inserting the missing closing quote). As such, I think your patches can be built atop this series without worrying about conflicts. That would allow this commit-corruption-bug-fixing series to land without being tied to those "wip" patches which address lower-priority problems. > I'd really like to see a single function to read and another to write > the author script that is shared by 'git am' and 'git rebase -i', rather > than the two writers and three readers we have at the moment. I was > thinking of doing that in the longer term, but given the extra bug > you've found in read_author_script() maybe we should do that sooner > rather than later. Agreed. That seems a reasonable long-term goal but needn't hold up this series which addresses very real bugs leading to object corruption.
