Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] Add --base option to git-format-patch to record base tree info

From: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Date: Apr 27, 2016, 07:33 UTC
Message-ID: <20160427073350.GA30342@yexl-desktop>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq4maogpsw.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:58:39AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

>Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
>
>>> So from where are you proposing Git to grab that information if you
>>> do not tell it?  "If the HEAD is detached, assume that the base is
>>> where it was detached from" or something?
>>
>> That would also work for me. In my first mail I was proposing to take
>> the information from the format-patch argument, such that a one off fix
>> would be:
>>
>>     (1) git checkout origin/master
>>     (2) EDIT
>>     (3) git commit -a -m "fix"
>>     (4) git format-patch origin/master..  # <- This is the information.
>>
>> However you read it as taking the information from the first line,
>> which is also fine with me, as then the (4) can become
>>
>>     (4a) git format-patch HEAD^

Thanks for the suggestion, I think this feature would definitely save effort for end users and help to improve the usage rate of this "--base" option.

If I understand it correctly, we should try to parse the "revision range" specified in the fomat-patch cmdline if format.useAutoBase is set and we couldn't find the remote-tracking branch, if its pattern matches something like "<branchname>..<rev2>", we will try to get base commit from it:

  - If it is a remote branch, just set its head as base
  - If it isn't, try to set branchname@{u} as base

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Show 12 quoted lines

>
>Either would work, but reading from (4) feels a lot less black magic
>to me.
>
>>> If you are doing "format-patch master..my-branch", what do you
>>> propose to set your base to?  master@{u}, perhaps?
>>
>> Yes. (I usually use that command with |s|master|origin/master|, so the
>> argument is the upstream already. A local master branch does not exist for me.)
>
>Let's hear from folks at Intel ;-) Both of the above sounds like
>sensible enhancements to me.

Shall I squash these enhancements in this series, or I need to make another patch for them?

Thanks, Xiaolong