Hi Junio,
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 01:12:04PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > diff --git a/Documentation/config/format.txt b/Documentation/config/format.txt
> > index dc77941c48..d387451573 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/config/format.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/config/format.txt
> > @@ -28,14 +28,22 @@ format.headers::
> >
> > format.to::
> > format.cc::
> > +format.<branch-name>.to::
> > +format.<branch-name>.cc::
> > Additional recipients to include in a patch to be submitted
> > - by mail. See the --to and --cc options in
> > - linkgit:git-format-patch[1].
> > + by mail. For the <branch-name> options, the recipients are only
> > + included if patches are generated for the given <branch-name>.
> > + See the --to and --cc options in linkgit:git-format-patch[1].
>
> An obvious question that somebody else may raise is:
>
> What makes the branch name that special? What guarantees that
> it would stay to be the *only* thing that affects the choice of
> these variables?
>
> An obvious answer to that is "nothing---we are painting ourselves in
> a corner we cannot easily get out of with this design".
>
> If we want to drive format-patch differently depending on the
> combination of the worktree location *and* the branch the patches
> are generated from, we can do something like:
>
> [includeif "gitdir:/path/to/worktree/1"] path = one.inc
> [includeif "gitdir:/path/to/worktree/2"] path = two.inc
>
> and then have one.inc/two.inc have customized definition of these
> format.<branch>.{to,cc,...} variables.
>
> But at that point, Ævar's "wouldn't this fit better with includeif"
> suggestion becomes more and more appropriate. Once we invent the
> way to combine the conditions for includeIf, it would benefit not
> just this set of variables but all others that will follow in the
> future.
Hmm, I'm starting to like Ævar's idea more the more I think about it.
>
> Having said that, as long as we are fine with the plan to deprecate
> and remove these three-level variables this patch introdues in the
> future, I think it is OK to have them as a temporary stop-gap
> measure.
>
> > +format.<branch-name>.coverSubject::
> > + When format-patch generates a cover letter for the given
> > + <branch-name>, use the specified subject for the cover letter
> > + instead of the generic template.
>
> I still think it is a mistake that this has to be given separately
> and possibly redundantly from the branch description.
I forgot about incorporating this. Since we don't need a branch-specific
coverSubject anymore, we can push everything into a includeif since now
format.<name>.coverSubject doesn't really need to exist.
I'm going to repurpose --cover-subject format.coverSubject to be a
boolean option which'll mean "process the description and if you can
extract a subject out of it, put it on the cover letter". This way, we
can maintain backwards compatability in case users have some specific
use-case.
Unless you'd like this processing to be the default behaviour? I'm
impartial either way.
>
> > +static const char *branch_specific_config[] = {
> > + "branch",
> > + "format",
> > + NULL
> > +};
>
> Yuck. This will break a workflow where a fixed branch with a known
> configuration is deleted and recreated over and over again
> (e.g. think of "for-linus" branches used for request-pull in each
> merge window).
I suppose when we implement `onBranch`, you'd prefer `git branch -d` to
also not discard those sections.
>
> > static void delete_branch_config(const char *branchname)
> > {
> > struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> > - strbuf_addf(&buf, "branch.%s", branchname);
> > - if (git_config_rename_section(buf.buf, NULL) < 0)
> > - warning(_("Update of config-file failed"));
> > + int i;
> > + for (i = 0; branch_specific_config[i]; i++) {
> > + strbuf_addf(&buf, "%s.%s", branch_specific_config[i], branchname);
> > + if (git_config_rename_section(buf.buf, NULL) < 0)
> > + warning(_("Update of config-file failed"));
> > + strbuf_reset(&buf);
> > + }
>
> This will hardcode the unwarranted limitation that the second level
> of the format.*.var hierarchy MUST be branch names and nothing else,
> won't it?
>
I was expecting it to only be branch names but now let's take a
different approach.
Consider patches 3-6 dropped. I'd like to queue 1-2, though, since
they're just cleanup patches.
Also, expect a onBranch patchset some time in the future (not the near
future, school is busy).
Thanks for your feedback, Junio.
