Re: [PATCH] git-am: Handle "git show" output correctly

> Dan Johnson <computerdruid@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Not really.  If we start encouraging people to use "git show" output
>>> as a kosher input to "am", we would have to support such use
>>> forever, and we end up painting ourselves in a corner we cannot get
>>> out of easily.
>>
>> If git am emitted a warning when accepting "git show" output, it seems
>> like it would support Peter's use-case without encouraging bad
>> behavior?
>
> Are you seriously suggesting me to sell to our users a new feature
> saying "this does not work reliably, we would not recommend using
> it, no, really, don't trust it." from the day the feature is
> introduced, especially when we know it will not be "the feature does
> not work well yet, but it will, we promise" but is "and it may become
> worse in the future"?
>
> I do not see much point in doing that.

> Besides, what bad behaviour do we avoid from encouraging with such
> an approach?  As Peter said, the problem is not on the part of the
> user who ended up with an output from "git show", when he really
> wants output from "git format-patch".  Giving the warning to the
> user of "git am" is too late.

> I may be able to be pursuaded to swallow a new script somewhere in
> the contrib/ hierarchy that takes a "git show" output and formats it
> to look like "format-patch" output to be fed to "git am".  That way,
> when a user has trouble with its parsing of "git show" output, at
> least we can ask for the output of the format massaging step to help
> us diagnose where the problem lies.