Re: [PATCH] Implement git-quiltimport (take 2)

From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Date: May 18, 2006, 10:48 UTC
Message-ID: <m1ejyr38xx.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vy7x09qet.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:

Show 30 quoted lines

> ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>
>> Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:
>>
>>> What's the expected workflow for you to work on a 1300 patch
>>> series you get from Andrew in the next installment to deal with
>>> 88 unattributed patches?  Answer the question 88 times and make
>>> sure you get the answers right every time?  Or abort and
>>> hand-edit them to help mailinfo to notice the correct
>>> attribution and re-run?
>>
>> For the internal consumption case it isn't a big deal.  I
>> can specify --author with something bogus and it works. 
>
> Yes.
>
>>> I know I am guilty of suggesting "going interactive", but I have
>>> a feeling that having an optional file that maps patch-name to
>>> author might be easier to work with.  If the old patches are
>>> recycled in the updated -mm set, you probably can reuse the
>>> mapping for them, adding entries for newly introduced "unnamed"
>>> patches as needed.
>>
>> Short of getting the script where it has a sane restart in the
>> middle mode going interactive and asking questions makes a lot
>> of sense.  Especially with smaller trees.
>
> Yes perhaps on smaller trees, but that does not mean much.  For
> smaller trees and/or smaller patch series almost anything would
> do.

Yes, a smaller patch series, that is what I meant. Most quilt trees that I know about are in needed small.

Andrews is the only one I know of that has gets as far as sucking in other quilt trees.

Show 6 quoted lines

> How about doing something like this, so that the user can record
> the fixup information, especially with --dry-run patch?  Then
> the next round from the updated -mm tree the user would not have
> to retype them again ("then..fi" part should be indented in the
> final version, but I did not want indentation changes to
> distract you):

This might be a sane work flow. My imagination actually had the user making a copy of the quilt tree and editing it by hand. My --dry-run doesn't ask the question it just throws errors so --dry-run isn't quite the right name.

So I guess with something like --dry-run there isn't a restart problem. The question is if we don't edit the patches themselves where do we put your author-fixup tag? .dotest?

Eric