Hi John, John Vandenberg wrote: > On 9/18/05, Gary V. Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>John Vandenberg wrote: >>>On 9/18/05, Gary V. Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>This patch allows calling quilt mail with a list of patch names >>>>after the usual arguments, and mails only those patches rather >>>>than the entire series. If only a single patch is named then it >>>>is put into the bady of a single mail (that's what I'm using to >>>>send this patch) >>> >>>This patch makes `mail' the first command to operate on multiple >>>patches outside of the series. While I would enjoy being able to send >>>a single patch, or a sub-series, I don't think quilt should generate >>>emails that can't be applied on the receiving end. In other words, in >>>order to send an adhoc set of patches, `mail' should first verify that >>>the dependency graph of the selected patches is sane. >> >>I disagree: tools shouldn't try to outsmart their users. If I have >>100 patches in my series that I posted yesterday, and I've just revised >>patch 100 as a result of feedback and want to repost the revision, I >>don't want quilt to post all 100 patches again -- I'm exaggerating but >>you see my point? >> >>Maybe a warning, or requiring a --force argument is reasonable? > > Warnings and --force sounds good. In order to do introduce > functionality that uses adhoc sets of patches, we need tools to > qualify what an adhoc set of patches is: i.e. is it a series, or a > guarded series, or multiple individual patches that have no > dependencies. Then we can warn the user appropriately, and they can > use --force in an informed manner.
Okay, cool. That sounds like a good approach.
>>Otherwise, why require users to go around quilt and paste the patches
>>they need to repost into their regular MUA?
>
> I am not suggesting that quilt mail shouldn't tackle this task. It
> should. But please, when it does, it should maintain the sanity of
> the series it sends. IMO, it should not revert to being just another
> script that can email files, in the hope that eventually someone will
> add the smarts later.
ACK.
>>As it stands mail is
>>mostly useless... all I can do is post my whole series once. And
>>repost the entire series again when I've added a new patch to it that
>>I want to open for peer review...
>
> I have no reservations about quilt mail sending a single patch. For
> multiple patches, why not author a new/temporary series file, verify
> it works, and then use quilt mail. This could be combined together
> into a single operation.
ACK.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll add it to my TODO.
Cheers,
Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan ())_. [EMAIL PROTECTED],gnu.org}
Research Scientist ( '/ http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker / )= http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Quilt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/quilt-dev
