Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Add for_each_remote() function, and extend remote_find_tracking()

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Jul 10, 2007, 21:09 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707101503470.6977@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vtzscqf2r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > The function for_each_remote() does exactly what the name suggests.
> >
> > The function remote_find_tracking() was extended to be able to search
> > remote refs for a given local ref.  You have to set the parameter
> > "reverse" to true for that behavior.
> 
> The updated patch does not use "reverse" but the old description
> is still there.
> 
> Daniel, one thing I fear about your "I want to store the message
> in the object store so that I can reuse even after I re-polish
> the series" desire on the cover letter topic is this kind of
> gotcha, and that is why I suggested "*** BLURB GOES HERE ***".
> Both the summary (diffstat and shortlog) part and the
> description part should be kept fresh in the updated 0/N; while
> we can automate the summary part whenever we re-generate 0/N,
> you cannot automate the description part.

It seems to me that commit messages are much more likely to mention the sorts of details that are affected by review than cover letters are. Furthermore, if the message is coming out of a tag on the head of the series, whatever is used to put the tag onto the new head of the series would present the buffer for editting again, just like commit --amend does. So the user would be just as likely to think to update a series header as a commit message, and less likely to need to.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*