Re: [PATCH 1/4] rebase -i: add ack action

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 11, 2016, 19:48 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqlh4krkop.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160411184535-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:

Show 26 quoted lines

> Repost, sorry about the noise.
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 05:36:45PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>> 
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> 
>> > So far I only see examples of adding footers. If that's all we can think
>> > up, why code in all this genericity?
>> 
>> Because as far as I can see, the only benefitor of your patches would be
>> you.
>> 
>> Ciao,
>> Johannes
>
> This seems unlikely.  Just merging the patches won't benefit me directly
> - I have maintained them in my tree for a couple of years now with very
> little effort.  For sure, I could benefit if they get merged and then
> someone improves them further - that was the point of posting them - but
> then I'm not the only benefitor.
>
> The workflow including getting acks for patches by email is not handled
> well by upstream git right now.  It would surprise me if no one uses it
> if it's upstream, as you seem to suggest.  But maybe most people moved
> on and just do pull requests instead.

I doubt I would use this in its current form myself.

Patch series I receive are all queued on their own separate topic branches, and having to switch branches only to create a fake empty commit to record received Acked-by and Reviewed-by is a chore that serves only half of what needs to be done. Once I decide to switch back to the topic branch after receiving Acked-by and Reviewed-by, I'd rather "rebase -i" to directly record them at that point, with "reword".

If the "trailers" stuff is packaged into an easier-to-use format to use with "git commit --amend", I may use that together with "exec" to automatically add these while doing so, but again, I do not see any need for fake empty commits out of received e-mails in the resulting workflow.

That does not at all mean nobody other than Michael would use it, though.