Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/2] place cherry pick line below commit title
- From
- Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
- Date
- Oct 5, 2016, 19:38 UTC
- Message-ID
- <a7304731-fa05-92c2-6139-ecd1e6adcefd@google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqwphouivf.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On 10/04/2016 10:25 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> So I would say it is perfectly OK if your update works only for > cases we can clearly define the semantics for. For example, we can > even start with something simple like: > > * A RFC822-header like line, together with any number of whitespace > indented lines that immediately follow it, will be taken as a > single logical trailer element (with embedded LF in it if it uses > the "line folding"). For the purpose of "replace", the entire > single logical trailer element is replaced. > > * A line that begins with "(cherry picked from" and "[" becomes a > single logical trailer element. No continuation of anything > fancy. > > * A line with any other shape is a garbage line in a trailer > block. It is kept in its place, but because it does not even > have <token> part, it will not participate in locating with > "trailer.where", "trailer.ifexists", etc.
Sounds reasonable to me. Would the "[" be a bit of overspecification, though, since Git doesn't produce it? Also, identifying it as a garbage line probably wouldn't change any behavior - in the Linux kernel examples, it is used to show what happened in between sign-offs, so there will always be one "Signed-off-by:" at the top. (But I do not feel strongly about this.)
> A block of lines that appear as the last paragraph in a commit > message is a trailer block if and only if certain number or > percentage of lines are non-garbage lines according to the above > definition.
I think the number should be 1 - that seems like the easiest to explain. But I'm OK with other suggestions.
Show 38 quoted lines
> I wonder if we can share a new helper function to do the detection
> (and classification) of a trailer block and parsing the logical
> lines out of a commit log message. The function signature could be
> as simple as taking a single <const char *> (or a strbuf) that holds
> a commit log message, and splitting it out into something like:
>
> struct {
> const char *whole;
> const char *end_of_message_proper;
> struct {
> const char *token;
> const char *contents;
> } *trailer;
> int alloc_trailers, nr_trailers;
> };
>
> where
>
> - whole points at the first byte of the input, i.e. the beginning
> of the commit message buffer.
>
> - end-of-message-proper points at the first byte of the trailer
> block into the buffer at "whole".
>
> - token is a canonical header name for easy comparison for
> interpret-trailers (you can use NULL for garbage lines, and made
> up token like "[bracket]" and "(cherrypick)" that would not clash
> with real tokens like "Signed-off-by").
>
> - contents is the bytes on the logical line, including the header
> part
>
> E.g. an element in trailer[] array may say
>
> {
> .token = "Signed-off-by",
> .contents = "Signed-Off-By: Some Body <some@body.xz>\n",
> }I get the impression from the rest of your e-mail that no strings are meant to be copied - is that true? (That sounds like a good idea to me.) In which case this might be better:
struct {
const char *first_trailer; /* = end_of_message_proper */
struct {
const char *start;
const char *value;
const char *end;
} *trailers;
int trailers_nr, trailers_alloc;
};start = value for "[", "(cherry picked from" and garbage lines. We also need end because there is no \0 there (we didn't copy any strings).
The existing code (in trailer.c) uses a linked list to store trailers, but an array (as written in your e-mail) is probably better for us since clients would want to access the last element (as also written in your e-mail).
Show 13 quoted lines
> With something like that, you can manipulate the "insert at ...", > "replace", etc. in the trailer[] array and then produce an updated > commit message fairly easily (i.e. copy out the bytes beginning at > "whole" up to "end_of_message_proper", then iterate over trailer[] > array and show their contents field). The codepaths in the core > part only need to know > > - how to check the last item in trailer[] array to see if it ends > with the same sign-off as they are trying to add. > > - how to append one new element to the trailer[] array. > > - reproduce an updated commit log message after the above.
I don't think we need trailer block struct -> commit message conversion - when adding a new trailer or replacing an existing trailer, the client code can just remember the index and then modify its behavior accordingly when iterating through all trailers. But this conversion can be easily added if/when we need it.
> Hmm?
Overall, this seems like a good idea - I'll go ahead and do this if there are no other objections.
It just occurred to me that there could be some corner cases when the trailer separator is configured to not include ":" - I'll make sure to include tests that check those corner cases.