Re: [PATCH RFC] git-am: support any number of signatures
- From
- Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
- Date
- Jun 13, 2014, 08:00 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20140613080036.GA2117@redhat.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqioo654mg.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:07:03PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 21 quoted lines
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes: > > > I'm using different signature tags for git am depending on the patch, > > project and other factors. > > > > Sometimes I add multiple tags as well, e.g. QEMU > > wants both Reviewed-by and Signed-off-by tags. > > > > This patch makes it easy to do so: > > 1. new parameter am.signoff can be used any number > > of times: > > > > [am] > > signoff = "Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>" > > signoff = "Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>" > > > > if set all signatures are picked up when git am -s is used. > > How does this interact with the logic to avoid appending the same > Signed-off-by: line as the last one the incoming message already > has?
Not handled if you have multiple signatures. That will have to be fixed. Do we only care about the last line?
Signed-off-by: A Signed-off-by: B
do we want to add
Signed-off-by: A
or would it be better to replace with Signed-off-by: B Signed-off-by: A
?
Current git am will add A twice, I wonder if this is a feature or a bug.
Show 24 quoted lines
> > 2. Any number of alternative signatures
> >
> > [am "a"]
> > signoff = "Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>"
> >
> > if set the signature type can be specified by passing
> > a parameter to the -s flag:
> >
> > git am -sa
> >
> > No docs or tests, sorry, so not yet ready for master, but I'm using this
> > all the time without any issues so maybe ok for pu.
> > Early flames/feedback/help welcome.
>
> How does that "a" in [am "a"] work? If it defines some kind of
> scope (i.e. use am.a.* instead of am.* when I specify I am using "a"
> set somehow), that might be something interesting, but if it applies
> only to sign-off and other things, then I am not sure if I like it,
> as that would invite confusions from end users.
>
> > + signoffs=("${signoffs[@]}" "${s[@]}") ;;
>
> Is this a shell array? It won't fly in our codebase if that is the
> case.