Re: [PATCH] sequencer.c: fix detection of duplicate s-o-b
- From
Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date
- Apr 7, 2016, 20:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20160407201636.GA29322@1wt.eu>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAP8UFD2OQfcogZj-hELxBB+-rWSW1YwPBCOXK1+oM2kKGaMwaA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Christian,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:06:59PM -0400, Christian Couder wrote:
Show 34 quoted lines
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 07:57:01AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> This seems to have been lost, perhaps because the top part that was
> >> quite long didn't look like a patch submission message or something.
> >
> > Don't worry, we all know it's the submitter's responsibility to retransmit,
> > I apply the same principle :-)
> >
> >> Git 1.7.12 is a quite ancient release and I wouldn't be surprised if
> >> we made the behaviour change during the period leading to v2.6 on
> >> purpose, but nothing immediately comes to mind. Christian (as the
> >> advocate for the trailer machinery) and Brandon ("git shortlog
> >> sequencer.c" suggests you), can you take a look?
>
> Ok, I will try to have a look at that next week.
>
> > FWIW it wad changed in 1.8.3 by commit bab4d10 ("sequencer.c: teach
> > append_signoff how to detect duplicate s-o-b").
>
> So the change is quite old and was made before I started working on
> the trailer machinery.
>
> > The change made a lot of sense but it didn't assume that this practice
> > was common. And indeed I think this practice only happens in maintenance
> > branches where people have to make a lot of adaptations to existing
> > patches that they're cherry-picking. We do that a lot in stable kernels
> > to keep track of what we may need to revisit if we break something.
>
> Yeah, we know for some time, but after the above patch breakage
> happened and after I worked on interpret-trailers, that some lines
> inside [] are added by kernel people in the trailer part and that the
> trailer machinery doesn't work properly with such lines.
>
> Anyway if you want your patch to be applied, it will probably need tests.Thanks. I've discussed with Junio yesterday who notified me that my patch broke some existing tests that I hadn't updated (I didn't know they existed) namely one supposed to make the distinction between a normal footer and a special case where the s-o-b is in fact part of the last paragraph. So I said I'll rework the patch to only consider the parts between brackets above a footer. Thus no need to waste your time testing the current patch next week.
Thanks, Willy