Re: [StGIT PATCH 2/4] Abstract a PatchSet object out of Series.

From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 14, 2007, 22:56 UTC
Message-ID: <b0943d9e0706141556w1fb280dbu12e55dc91f6d5941@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070613203821.GQ6992@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net>

On 13/06/07, Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> I have started to work on a Hydra class (available at [1], but be
> aware it doesn't do much more than creating an octopus, and breaking
> many current StGIT assumptions), with a testcase to demonstrate its
> use), which binds together a set of stacks with an octopus, to allow
> keeping related patches together, and allow people to pull from one
> topic stack without getting unrelated work.

If it works, it would be really useful. Do the stacks need to be independent? I can group my patches easily (and I was thinking about "collapse/expand" commands for better viewing) but one stack might still depend on patches from a different one. It would be nice if one could also set the base of a series in this kind of hydra structure (unless it makes it difficult to understand).

Show 9 quoted lines

> > The HEAD in my repository fails the test suite. Do you have any
> > additional patches pending (some patches were not applied in order as
> > I had to manually fix the conflicts). Anyway, please check my
> > repository for any missing patches.
>
> Oh, I had not noticed you had applied
> bd69feaf7c3c94b6e7e216ea8091064af9cdfa97.  Sorry, I was not explicit
> enough when posing this, only the cover mail included "RFC" in the
> subject.

OK, they were left as unread in my inbox and thought they were new.

Show 9 quoted lines

> As described in that mail, there are problems both with the
> original approach (Karl's test failing), and with that new one (that
> exisiting test failing).
>
> Do you have any idea on how we could overcome the problem ?  In the
> meantime, we could possibly just comment that testcase out (or add
> support for continuing the testsuite even with a failure) - the
> problem it exhibits is probably less common than the one that was
> fixed.

I am happy with only 2 modes - one using ORIG_HEAD for people using StGIT in combination with plain GIT and the other overriding the base without checks. The second mode is for people not mixing StGIT with plain GIT. For the first mode, they have to deal with conflicts as with the standard GIT.

Show 7 quoted lines

> BTW, a02ba4077f12578fe31c99d903488804a656e1c4 has a slight problem: it
> is a patch by Karl, which I re-sent in the same group since it was
> exhibiting the problem (and with the intent of adding a signed-off-by
> line, but my way of adding them trough a buggy template showed its
> limits and the commit now have 2 signed-off-by lines with Karl's
> name).  However, it was applied with myself as author, which is quite
> wrong: could that be a but in "stg import" ignoring the Author field ?

It's not a bug. The import command just uses the e-mail sender or a "From:" line before the patch description (see the default mail template). It doesn't check the sign lines (it is following the kernel patch submission guidelines).

I would drop both the above commits for release 0.13. Are you OK with this?

-- 
Catalin