Hi Stefan,
On Fri, 4 May 2018, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > Branch-diff vs v1:
> > 1: 42db734a980 ! 1: 73398da7119 sequencer: learn about the special "fake
> > root commit" handling
> > @@ -54,40 +54,50 @@
> > return NULL;
> > }
> >
> > ++/* Read author-script and return an ident line (author <email>
> > timestamp) */
> > +static const char *read_author_ident(struct strbuf *buf)
>
>
> I like the new way of read_author_ident. Thanks for writing it!
You're welcome. After sleeping a night over it, I think this function
might also benefit from a new name: extract_ident_from_author_script().
What do you think?
> > @@ -159,7 +169,17 @@
> > +/* Does this command create a (non-merge) commit? */
> > +static int is_pick_or_similar(enum todo_command command)
> > +{
> > -+ return command <= TODO_SQUASH;
> > ++ switch (command) {
> > ++ case TODO_PICK:
> > ++ case TODO_REVERT:
> > ++ case TODO_EDIT:
> > ++ case TODO_REWORD:
> > ++ case TODO_FIXUP:
> > ++ case TODO_SQUASH:
> > ++ return 1;
> > ++ default:
> > ++ return 0;
> > ++ }
>
> The switch case is not as bad as I thought following the discussion on of v1.
Yes, it makes things explicit, and it is not too long a case-chain.
> This series is
> Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <[email protected]>
Thanks!
> <off topic>
> During a lunch discussion I wondered if the branch diff format could lead to
> another form of machine readable communication, i.e. if we want to add the
> ability to read the branch diff format and apply the changes. Note how
> applying
> this diff-diff would not create new commits, but rather amend existing
> commits.
</off topic> (which BTW is not valid XML)
I do not think that it would be a wise idea to detour even further from
Git when exchanging patch series iterations. We have a lovely way to
exchange commits, after all: `git fetch` and `git push`, and for times you
cannot agree on a central server, `git bundle`.
Ciao,
Dscho
