Re: Better suggestions when git-am(1) fails

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mar 10, 2023, 09:54 UTC
Message-ID: <ZAr+ZF0kCMEdaDo2@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqr0tx8ubw.fsf@gitster.g>

On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 01:53:55PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > So here's a patch series which I think should help with the sending
> > side. Most of it is just filling in gaps in the code and tests for
> > current features. Patch 4 is the actual change. Patch 5 adds an
> > equivalent option just for format-patch. I'm not convinced anybody
> > really wants it (which is why I split it out), but it's probably worth
> > doing just in case.
> >
> >   [1/5]: diff: factor out src/dst prefix setup
> >   [2/5]: t4013: add tests for diff prefix options
> >   [3/5]: diff: add --default-prefix option
> >   [4/5]: format-patch: do not respect diff.noprefix
> >   [5/5]: format-patch: add format.noprefix option
> 
> I've reviewed these five changes, and while I am not 100% sold to
> the idea that we should force our -p1 worldview to those who choose
> to use diff.noprefix for whatever reason, I think these patches
> describe what they want to do and implement it in a very readable
> way.
> 
> Thanks.  Queued.

Thanks for looking at them. Let's see if we get any other comments on the direction, and then I may re-roll. Even if we don't do 4 or 5, I think the extra tests are worth adding. Either way I'd probably drop 3 (in favor of --src-prefix) and squash its tests into 2. Patch 1 isn't worthwhile if we don't do 3-5, since we wouldn't be adding any new callers of the helpers.

If we do proceed, I'd suggest trying to cook in 'next' for a long time to get comment. Though I think both you and I are pessimistic that we get a wide variety of user testing that way.

-Peff