Em 17-03-2011 19:20, Peter Maydell escreveu: > On 17 March 2011 23:06, Guilherme Salgado <guilherme.salg...@linaro.org> > 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. > 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". > > 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/ Yeah, that patch is OK: First body line is a "From:" line, and the first SOB is from the patch author. > 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: patchwork_subject: patchwork_from: This allow people that use some sort of script (like me) to decide how they want to handle it. Mauro. _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork