Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] generate-cmdlist.sh: parse common command groups

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: May 3, 2015, 21:10 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cRqvd=_n9huD_txEr6EXVrWZx0onReL5bh_mCKy3M3LOg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <55468ABB.8050504@gmail.com>

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Sébastien Guimmara <sebastien.guimmara@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> On 05/03/2015 10:40 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>>> These people may have helped you to polish your earlier round to
>>> come up with this version, but I do not think they should be listed
>>> as reviewed-by (in the sense that they would say "Yes, I read this
>>> version and consider it very good--I endorse the change!") yet.
>>
>> Minor addendum: If you'd like to acknowledge Luke for $(...) and
>> Andreas for IFS munging, then Helped-by: would be appropriate (and
>> doesn't require their consent).
>
> Thanks for the precision, I got confused with this one.

What Junio meant was that Reviewed-by: is something that reviewers
"give" explicitly when they are confident that they understand and
believe your patches are correct. You may incorporate a "given"
Reviewed-by: into a patch when re-rolling if the patch hasn't changed
since the previous round (or has changed in very minor ways which
don't affect the Reviewed-by:). Someone merely reading your patch and
commenting on it (and possibly making suggestions) does not warrant a
Reviewed-by: since comments and suggestions alone don't necessarily
mean that they agree that a patch is acceptable or correct, thus don't
add Reviewed-by: without it being "given".

Helped-by: is for acknowledging someone's assistance.

More below.

Show 20 quoted lines

>> So, something like this, perhaps:
>>
>>      [groups]
>>      init    starting a working area
>>      info    examining history and state
>>      ...
>>      branching    branching and merging histories
>>
>>      [commands]
>>      git-branch    mainporcelain branching
>>      ...
>>      git-clone    mainporcelain init
>>      ...
>>
>> This way, the 'N' in "N_group" is unnecessary since presentation order
>> is implied by the [groups] table, and you don't need the "common-"
>> prefix anymore since any command having an attribute from the [groups]
>> table is automatically considered common.
>
> It's a good idea. I'll look into it.

'awk' might be helpful to implement this sort of scheme, as well as Junio's suggestion of emitting only a group number in the generated table rather than a string. If so, try to stick to POSIX (and avoid GNU or other extensions).