Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add keyword unexpansion support to convert.c

From: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>
Date: Apr 18, 2007, 00:26 UTC
Message-ID: <20070418002658.GA18683@fieldses.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vps62lfbw.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 05:02:43PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> writes:
> 
> > As for a usage case:
> > - J.PEBKAC.User gets a a tree (from a tarball or GIT, we should gain the
> >   same output)
> > - Copies some file outside of the tree (the user is NOT smart enough,
> >   and resists all reasonable attempts at edumacation)
> > - Modifies said file outside of tree.
> > - Contacts maintainer with entire changed file.
> > - User vanishes off the internet.
> >
> > The entire file he sent if it's CVS, contains a $Header$ that uniquely
> > identifies the file (path and revision), and the maintainer can simply
> > drop the file in, and 'cvs diff -r$OLDREV $FILE'.
> > If it's git, the maintainer drops the file in, and does 'git diff
> > $OLDSHA1 $FILE'.
> 
> I personally hope that the maintainer drops such a non-patch
> that originates from a PEBKAC.  At least I hope the tools that I
> personally use are not maintained by such a maintainer ;-)

That may not be quite fair--note the 'git diff $OLDSHA1 $FILE'. So the $Header$ here is a hint telling the maintainer how to produce a (hopefully) reviewable patch, not an invitation to blindly drop random files into the tree. (Other objections to accepting code from random non-reachable people aside....)

I've occasionally wondered before whether git could offer any help in the case where, say, somebody hands me a file, I know it's based on src/widget/widget.c from somewhere in v0.5..v0.7, and I'd like a guess at the most likely candidates.

I haven't wondered that often enough that I'd consider it worth embedding the blob SHA1 in every checked-out file, though!

--b.