Re: FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX increase

2017-05-30 Thread Laszlo Ersek
On 05/30/17 16:35, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: >> >>> Just curious do you know about https://github.com/trast/tbdiff ? If >>> not it might have a high overlap with

Re: FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX increase

2017-05-30 Thread Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > >> Just curious do you know about https://github.com/trast/tbdiff ? If >> not it might have a high overlap with what you're doing. > > Yes, that is a very good

Re: FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX increase

2017-05-30 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > Just curious do you know about https://github.com/trast/tbdiff ? If > not it might have a high overlap with what you're doing. Yes, that is a very good suggestion. You'd need to be able to actually apply the patches but the way I often do a

Re: FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX increase

2017-05-30 Thread Junio C Hamano
Laszlo Ersek writes: > The problem is that I can't really automate the subject munging. The > concrete subjects in this case were: > >> OvmfPkg/QemuFwCfgLib: Implement SEV internal function for SEC phase >> OvmfPkg/QemuFwCfgLib: Implement SEV internal functions for PEI phase

Re: FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX increase

2017-05-30 Thread Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > (apologies for the self-followup:) > > On 05/30/17 14:28, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > >> Note that in such an incremental review, I specifically wish to compare >> patches against each other (i.e., I'd like to see diffs of diffs,

Re: FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX increase

2017-05-30 Thread Laszlo Ersek
(apologies for the self-followup:) On 05/30/17 14:28, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > Note that in such an incremental review, I specifically wish to compare > patches against each other (i.e., I'd like to see diffs of diffs, AKA > interdiffs), and not the source tree at two, v1<->v2, commits into the >

Re: FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX increase

2017-05-30 Thread Laszlo Ersek
On 05/30/17 13:36, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> Hi, >> >> would it be possible to >> >> - increase the FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX macro from 64 to, say, 128? >> >> - Or else to introduce a new git-config knob for it? >> >>

Re: FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX increase

2017-05-30 Thread Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > Hi, > > would it be possible to > > - increase the FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX macro from 64 to, say, 128? > > - Or else to introduce a new git-config knob for it? > > I have a small review-helper / interdiff script that matches

Re: FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX increase

2017-05-30 Thread Laszlo Ersek
On 05/30/17 03:34, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I cannot offhand guess what other places would suffer from such a > project convention, because I do not work with such a project, but > you may be able to come up with a list of various places in Git > where the commit titles are used, and that if there

Re: FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX increase

2017-05-29 Thread Junio C Hamano
Laszlo Ersek writes: > would it be possible to > > - increase the FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX macro from 64 to, say, 128? > > - Or else to introduce a new git-config knob for it? It's open source, so both are "possible", but you are interested in learning if these are acceptable

FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX increase

2017-05-29 Thread Laszlo Ersek
Hi, would it be possible to - increase the FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX macro from 64 to, say, 128? - Or else to introduce a new git-config knob for it? I have a small review-helper / interdiff script that matches patches from adjacent versions of a series against each other, based on subject line.