Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] format-patch: add '--base' option to record base tree info

>Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:38:04AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>>The contents of this look OK, but does it format correctly via
>>>AsciiDoc?  I suspect that only the first paragraph up to "of this
>>>shape:" would appear correctly and all the rest would become funny.
>>
>> Sorry, just heard of AsciiDoc, I will try to use it to do the right format work.
>
>Please make sure "make -C Documentation" produces sensible output
>for *.1 (manpage) and *.html.

>
>>>> +	init_revisions(&revs, NULL);
>>>> +	revs.max_parents = 1;
>>>> +	base->object.flags |= UNINTERESTING;
>>>> +	add_pending_object(&revs, &base->object, "base");
>>>> +	for (i = 0; i < total; i++) {
>>>> +		list[i]->object.flags |= 0;
>>>
>>>What does this statement do, exactly?  Are you clearing some bits
>>>but not others, and if so which ones?
>>
>> My mistake, it's useless and should be removed.
>
>It probably make sense to do "&= ~UNINTERESTING" there, though.  You
>are adding one UNINTERESTING object (i.e. the base) and adding
>objects that are on the list[] as interesting.

>
>>>This shows the patches in the order discovered by the revision
>>>traversal, which typically is newer to older.  Is that intended?
>>>Is it assumed that the order of the patches does not matter?
>>
>> The prerequisite patches should show in topological order, thus robot
>> could parse them one by one and apply the patches in reverse order.
>
>If you have history where base is B, with three prerequisites 1-2-3,
>before the patch series A-B-C, i.e.
>
>	B---1---2---3---A---B---C
>
>if you are showing "base-commit: B" as the first line in the base
>tree information block, it would be natural to expect that the
>prerequisite patch ids are listed for 1 and then 2 and then finally
>3, i.e.
>
>	base-commit: B
>        prerequisite-patch-id: 1
>        prerequisite-patch-id: 2
>        prerequisite-patch-id: 3
>
>no?

>
>Also I know _you_ intend to consume this by robot, but it makes me
>wonder if with a minimum update you can make the output also more
>useful for bystander humans.  A mailing list participant may
>
> - see an early round of a series that interests her,
> - try to apply them to her tree,
> - find that the series does not apply, but
> - sees that a block to help identify to what tree the series is
>   meant to apply.
>
>With a list of 40-hex alone, she may not be able to figure out the
>prerequisites, but if there is some other clue that helps her to
>identify the base commit and these patches, she may be able to
>construct a tree that is close enough.  Maybe you can help her by
>appending the title of the commit and patches at the end of these
>lines?
>
>This is not a strong suggestion (yet); I am thinking aloud at this
>point, without knowing how much it would help in practice to do so.