Re: [PATCH] format-patch: add support for mailmap file
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Aug 14, 2024, 21:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq4j7mydof.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <20240813-jk-support-mailmap-git-format-patch-v1-1-1aea690ea5dd@gmail.com>
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com> writes:
Show 9 quoted lines
> diff --git a/builtin/log.c b/builtin/log.c
> index 4d4b60caa76a..94560add6fbc 100644
> --- a/builtin/log.c
> +++ b/builtin/log.c
> @@ -975,6 +975,7 @@ struct format_config {
> struct log_config log;
> enum thread_level thread;
> int do_signoff;
> + int use_mailmap;As we share the "--[no-]mailmap" option from the command line with "git log", shouldn't we be able to reuse log.use_mailmap_config as well without adding yet another member to the struct? "git log" defaults use_mailmap_config to true, but this command would want to default it to false to avoid disrupting existing users, or something, perhaps?
Show 9 quoted lines
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt b/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt > index 8708b3159309..f3de349990bf 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ SYNOPSIS > [--range-diff=<previous> [--creation-factor=<percent>]] > [--filename-max-length=<n>] > [--progress] > + [(--mailmap|--no-mailmap|--use-mailmap|--no-use-mailmap)]
We seem to say "[--[no-]cover-letter]" to abbreviate, and because "--[no-]use-mailmap" is merely a synonym, shouldn't it be sufficient to say
[--[no-]mailmap]
without any other frills? I find the use of the (al|terna|tive) here especially annoying, as it is not like it is an error if you give "--mailmap" and then say "--no-mailmap" later on the same command line---it's just the usual "last one wins".
I haven't decided what my response to Peff's concern on the fallout to "rebase --apply". On one hand, those who conciously choose to rebase by creating patches and applying them would find it puzzling if it did not honor format.mailmap setting. But I would not be strongly opposed if we hardcoded to pass "--no-mailmap" to the internal invocation of "format-patch", just like we hardcode "-k" and other options and justified it with "the use of format-patch is a mere implementation detail".
Thanks.