Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > I originally wanted to avoid the need for an option, but git-am >> > currently depends on the strict sequence number filenames. It is >> > unclear how difficult it would be to refactor git-am to work with >> > names that include the extra subject data. The change may be a bit involved but depending on where you decide to stop, it may not be too bad. What is your design goal of this topic? IOW, what is the maximum corrupted ordering of patches in a single mailbox do you want to recover from? The easiest and cleanest would be if you assume that the messages are in scrambled order, but are all from the same series, correctly numbered, without anything missing. A mbox may have 8 patches from a 8-patch series, with their subject lines having [1/8] to [8/8] without duplicates or droppages, without any other message that does not belong to the series. If that is where you are willing to stop, then you can still name the individual messages with just numbers (but taken out of the subject line, not the order the input was splitted into). "am" does not have to even know or care what you are doing in mailsplit in this case. THe next level would be to still assume that you stop at the same place (i.e. you do not support patches from multiple series in the same mailbox), but use the number-santized-subject format. This would be a bit more involved, but I think all you need to update on the "am" side is where the am_run() assigns the message file to the local variable "mail". You know the temporary directory where you told "mailsplit" to create these individual messages, so you should be able to "opendir/readdir/closedir" and create a list of numbered files in the directory very early in "git am". Knowing msgnum(state) at that point in the loop, it should be trivial to change the code that currently assumes the 4-th file is named "0004" to check for the file whose name begins with "0004-". I personally am not at all interested in doing that myself, because I do not see a reasonable way to lift the limitation of allowing a mailbox holding patches from only one series, and if we assume that a tool (i.e. "am" driving "mailsplit" in the new mode) with such a limitation is still useful, the source of such a scrambled mailbox must be quite a narrow and common one. At that point, I suspect that fixing the scrambling at that narrow and common source (e.g. your "t.mbox.gz from public inbox server that cannot be told to sort the messages in any order other than the arrival timestamp") would be a much better use of our engineering resource.
