Re: More builtin git-am issues..

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 5, 2015, 15:24 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqwpw4dh4a.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <55EA9A13.2050108@kdbg.org>

Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> writes:

> Why do we need a new rule? The old git-am had a logic that pleased
> everyone, and it must have been implemented somewhere. Shouldn't it be
> sufficient to just re-implement or re-use that logic?

If you look at the helper the rewritten "am" calls, you will notice that it is used by other things that wants to know whether a log message has the final "trailer" block, and the reason why the callers want to know is not limited to "I want to add a sign-off".

What your "just re-implement" means is "change the world order drastically to other callers who do not want such a special casing for sign-off".

That was why I tried to see if a slight tweak to the rule shared by all callers that would be much less likely to break these other callers can satisfy the need of "am".

Perhaps we would need to tell has_conforming_footer() function who the caller is, and use a different logic (i.e. "just re-implement") when the caller is append_signoff().