On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 23:20 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 17 March 2011 23:06, Guilherme Salgado <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 13:50 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > >> Em 16-03-2011 11:03, Guilherme Salgado escreveu: > >> > I see that some emails with patches have a From: field in the body[1], > >> > and I'm wondering if there's any reason for not using that (when > >> > available, of course) as the patch submitter. Well, now that I think of > >> > it, one could argue that the submitter is whoever sent the email, but > >> > maybe it would be useful to have a 'author' field on Patch so that we > >> > can properly represent cases where submitter != author? > > >> For example, I've seem a few patches that have email references. It would > >> not be impossible to see a "From: " or "Author: " in the middle of such > >> references. > > > > That's a good point, but I think we could avoid that if we were > > conservative and just used a 'From:' when it's at the beginning of a > > line and that line is before the beginning of the diff. > > Presumably what you actually want to do is accept From: lines in the > body in exactly the cases where 'git am' accepts them, since that's > the patch-email syntax where this case actually apperas in practice... > git am is more restrictive than just "at beginning of the line and > before the diff".
I think that's right. > > Here's an example where the From: in the body and the email > From: don't match (not even the same person), because the patch was > written by Christophe but (re)transmitted to the list by me as part > of a larger patchset: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/83254/ I can't reach ozlabs.org since yesterday. Is it just me or is it actually down? > > Guilherme: presumably Linaro will want to make a distinction > between "Linaro wrote this" and "a Linaro person is doing > upstream submaintainer type work with othre peoples' contributions" > in our patch counting metrics? (if so, there's your test case :-)) Yes, I'm sure we'll need to do that at some point, so I'll make sure whatever solution I come up with will be able to parse multiple 'From:' lines in the body. > > For completeness, should we support the git am "Subject: can > be at the start of the body" syntax too? If that's used frequently, I think so. -- Guilherme Salgado <https://launchpad.net/~salgado>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
