Re: [RFC/RFH] Fun things with git-notes, or: patch tracking backwards

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 10, 2009, 23:30 UTC
Message-ID: <7vprhpkgzk.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <200902110012.34717.trast@student.ethz.ch>

Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> writes:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> writes:
>> 
>> > I have imported all commits, and mails since roughly July 2008
>> > (starting with Gmane 89000).  In this timeframe there were 1802
>> > non-merge commits, and the mailnotes tree now holds 1122 annotations.
>> 
>> How do you match the mails to commits?
>> 
>> I am curious what the right balance for the matching algorithm should be,
>> between being forgiving about amending of commit log message and the patch
>> text to fix minor typos and obvious bugs, and being strict not to cause
>> false matches to a message that contains the second iteration of the
>> patch, when what was committed was the first iteration.
>
> Right now it's just the patch-id.  Maybe filtering (author,subject)
> and then picking the one that is the most similar could work.

Yeah, I actually was thinking about matching the (date, author) tuple and nothing else, as it is unlikely you would have dups.

By the way, the note to f6b98e4 (git-web--browse: Fix check for /bin/start, 2009-02-08) is interesting.

Ramsay's 104332 was the same as what ended up in the commit, but his second patch that can be found by going to the thread from it is obviously a better alternative. In short, I screwed up, by not recalling the previous round. Sorry.

I find the "Extra-Notes:" tag a bit too loud, but I am probably a minority who thinks everything but the Message-ID can be dropped, so please don't take it as a feature request ;-)