Re: [RFC PATCHv2 1/2] am: add gitk patch format

From: Chris Packham <judge.packham@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 5, 2014, 01:23 UTC
Message-ID: <CAFOYHZDfpZPvuE_BZQHajc65fZNKoyqvFf+UZyf0LyLwrooqzA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPc5daWip1dQ5Or6hzmdjoBUStusvs-jK0ODNuzAotNfM5BLbQ@mail.gmail.com>

(added back git ml because I accidentally dropped the Cc when replying to Junio).

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

>>> I doubt that a patchset that does
>>> not update mailinfo and mailsplit to extract information and to undo
>>> the indentation could be a right solution.
>>
>> I've read this sentence a couple of times and I can't understand it.
>
> "am" uses mailsplit on the input file to separate it into one or more
> input files, each of which represents a single change. On each of
> them, it uses mailinfo to extract the meta information (e.g.
> authorship), log message and the patch into separate files.

Except when --patch-format=hg|stgit is specified (or detected). In these cases mailsplit is avoided.

Show 5 quoted lines

> It does not make any sense for a support for a new input format that
> does not teach mailinfo how to handle that format. Transforming it
> into a pseudo e-mail format is not the way to go. If that approach were
> acceptable, that format conversion filter can be run completely outside
> "am" in the first place, no?

So teaching git mailinfo to do s/^ // (either when asked to or using some heuristic) would be a better approach? I also think we should accept "Author:" as an acceptable fallback if "From:" is not present.