On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 09:23 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em 17-03-2011 19:20, Peter Maydell escreveu: > > 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. > > Being at the beginning of a line is not enough. Patches that are forwarded > in general follows rule of having the From: as the first line of the > email body.
Ok, the more restrictive rule we can use the better. :) > > > 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 :-)) > > > > For completeness, should we support the git am "Subject: can > > be at the start of the body" syntax too? > > I think that, if such support is added on patchwork (both from: and subject: > replacements), the better would be to output them as a patchwork-specific > meta-data at the emails, like: We should store them in the DB in a structured fashion, but once we have that it's trivial to include it in the mbox file that patchwork provides for every patch, which i think is what you want? > > patchwork_subject: > patchwork_from: > > This allow people that use some sort of script (like me) to decide how > they want to handle it. -- 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
