Le 14/11/2017 à 07:00, Junio C Hamano a écrit :
> Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> if (!git_config_get_bool("commit.gpgsign", &gpgsign))
>> state->sign_commit = gpgsign ? "" : NULL;
>> +
>> }
> Please give at least a cursory proof-reading before sending things
> out.
>
>> @@ -1106,14 +1131,6 @@ static void am_next(struct am_state *state)
>>
>> oidclr(&state->orig_commit);
>> unlink(am_path(state, "original-commit"));
>> -
>> - if (!get_oid("HEAD", &head))
>> - write_state_text(state, "abort-safety", oid_to_hex(&head));
>> - else
>> - write_state_text(state, "abort-safety", "");
>> -
>> - state->cur++;
>> - write_state_count(state, "next", state->cur);
> Moving these lines to a later part of the source file is fine, but
> can you do so as a separate preparatory patch that does not change
> anything else? That would unclutter the main patch that adds the
> feature, allowing better reviews from reviewers.
>
> The hunk below...
Sure. I usually do all this later in the process.
>> +/**
>> + * Increments the patch pointer, and cleans am_state for the application of
>> the
>> + * next patch.
>> + */
>> +static void am_next(struct am_state *state)
>> +{
>> + struct object_id head;
>> +
>> + /* Flush the cover letter if needed */
>> + if (state->cover_at_tip == 1 &&
>> + state->series_len > 0 &&
>> + state->series_id == state->series_len &&
>> + state->cover_id > 0)
>> + do_apply_cover(state);
>> +
>> + am_clean(state);
>> +
>> + if (!get_oid("HEAD", &head))
>> + write_state_text(state, "abort-safety", oid_to_hex(&head));
>> + else
>> + write_state_text(state, "abort-safety", "");
>> +
>> + state->cur++;
>> + write_state_count(state, "next", state->cur);
>> +}
> ... if you followed that "separate preparatory step" approach, would
> show clearly that you added the logic to call do_apply_cover() when
> we transition after applying the Nth patch of a series with N patches,
> as all the existing lines will show only as unchanged context lines.
Agreed. The split of am_clean should probably have its own commit too.
>
> By the way, don't we want to sanity check state->last (which we
> learn by running "git mailsplit" that splits the incoming mbox into
> pieces and counts the number of messages) against state->series_len?
> Sometimes people send [PATCH 0-6/6], a 6-patch series with a cover
> letter, and then follow-up with [PATCH 7/6]. For somebody like me,
> it would be more convenient if the above code (more-or-less) ignored
> series_len and called do_apply_cover() after applying the last patch
> (which would be [PATCH 7/6]) based on what state->last says.
I thought about that.
Is there a use case for cover after the last patch works and removes the need
to touch am_next (can be done out of the loop in am_run).
If that multiple series in a mbox is something people do, your concern could be
solved by flushing the cover when state->series_id goes back to a lower value.
Nicolas
