On 7/30/19 12:54 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 30 2019, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > >> I was almost certain that git won't let me send the same patch twice, >> but today I've managed to double-send a directory by a mistake: >> git send-email --to linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx /tmp/timens/ >> --cc 'Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@xxxxxxxxx>' /tmp/timens/` >> >> [I haven't noticed that I put the directory twice ^^] >> >> Prevent this shipwreck from happening again by asking if a patch >> is sent multiple times on purpose. >> >> link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/4d53ebc7-d5b2-346e-c383-606401d19d3a@xxxxxxxxx >> Cc: Andrei Vagin <avagin@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Safonov <dima@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> git-send-email.perl | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > There's tests for send-email in t/t9001-send-email.sh. See if what > you're adding can have a test added, seems simple enough in this case. I wasn't sure if that needs a test or some `--send-them-twice` option. Decided to send it early.. Will add a test. > >> diff --git a/git-send-email.perl b/git-send-email.perl >> index 5f92c89c1c1b..0caafc104478 100755 >> --- a/git-send-email.perl >> +++ b/git-send-email.perl >> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ >> use Net::Domain (); >> use Net::SMTP (); >> use Git::LoadCPAN::Mail::Address; >> +use experimental 'smartmatch'; > > We depend on Perl 5.8, this bumps the requirenment to 5.10. Aside from > that ~~ is its own can of worms in Perl and is best avoided. Yeah, I'm not very into Perl and Stackoverflow *blush* suggested to use ~~. Will drop. > >> Getopt::Long::Configure qw/ pass_through /; >> >> @@ -658,6 +659,17 @@ sub is_format_patch_arg { >> } >> } >> >> +sub send_file_twice { >> + my $f = shift; >> + $_ = ask(__("Patch $f will be sent twice, continue? [y]/n "), > > These cases with a default should have "Y/n", not "y/n". See other > expamples in the file. Ok. > >> + default => "y", >> + valid_re => qr/^(?:yes|y|no|n)/i); >> + if (/^n/i) { >> + cleanup_compose_files(); >> + exit(0); > > Exit if we have just one of these? More on that later... > >> + } >> +} >> + >> # Now that all the defaults are set, process the rest of the command line >> # arguments and collect up the files that need to be processed. >> my @rev_list_opts; >> @@ -669,10 +681,19 @@ sub is_format_patch_arg { >> opendir my $dh, $f >> or die sprintf(__("Failed to opendir %s: %s"), $f, $!); >> >> - push @files, grep { -f $_ } map { catfile($f, $_) } >> + my @new_files = grep { -f $_ } map { catfile($f, $_) } >> sort readdir $dh; >> + foreach my $nfile (@new_files) { >> + if ($nfile ~~ @files) { >> + send_file_twice($nfile); >> + } > > One non-smartmatch idiom for this is: > > my %seen; > for my $file (@files) { > if ($seen{$file}++) { ...} > } > > Or: > > my %seen; > my @dupes = grep { $seen{$_}++ } @files; > >> + } >> + push @files, @new_files; >> closedir $dh; >> } elsif ((-f $f or -p $f) and !is_format_patch_arg($f)) { >> + if ($f ~~ @files) { >> + send_file_twice($f); >> + } >> push @files, $f; > > ...but picking up the comment above, I'd expect this to be in the "if > ($validate)" block below or something similar, seems like this fits > right in with --validate. By default it's on - sounds good to me. > Then you can also ask "do you want to send this set of patches twice > <full list>?". > > Now the user is asked a file-at-a-time. Ok, thanks for the suggestions. -- Dmitry
