Re: [PATCH] rebase -i: fixup fixup! fixup!

From: Andrew Pimlott <andrew@pimlott.net>
Date: Jun 25, 2013, 23:17 UTC
Message-ID: <1372201438-sup-833@pimlott.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vehbp27vl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Excerpts from Junio C Hamano's message of Tue Jun 25 14:33:18 -0700 2013:

Show 25 quoted lines

> Andrew Pimlott <andrew@pimlott.net> writes:
> 
> Just reponding for the "procedual" part for now.
> 
> > So if I don't want to break the discussion, should I append the unedited
> > format-patch output to my message after "scissors", or should I send it
> > as a whole new message with --in-reply-to?  Or something else?  I'll try
> > the first.
> 
> Which is fine, and you are almost there, but you do not want
> 
>  (1) "From 99023b..." that is not part of the message (it is a
>      delimiter between multiple patches when/in case a file contains
>      more than one);
> 
>  (2) "From: Andrew..." that is the same as the e-mail header in the
>      message I am responding to;
> 
>  (3) "Date: ..." which is older than the e-mail header in the
>      message I am responding to---the latter is the date people
>      actually saw this patch on the mailing list, so it is
>      preferrable to use it than the timestamp in your repository.
> 
> So in this case, I'd expect to see, after the "-- >8 --" line, only
> "Subject: " line, a blank and the log message.

Thank you. It was not clear to me even after several doc readings what git-mailinfo would look for where. I think I assumed that the idea was to transmit the original commit perfectly, and I stubbornly failed to give up that assumption even when it clearly didn't fit. Everything makes more sense with the understanding that the receiver will pull together non-patch metadata in the way that makes sense from his point of view (and that a different commit will come back via fetch). I will take a whack at clarifying the docs if I have time.

Andrew