Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Arif Khokar wrote: > On 02/13/2017 09:37 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >I actually had expected *you* to put in a little bit of an effort, too. In > >fact, I was very disappointed that you did not even look into porting that > >script to use public-inbox instead of

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 08:41:51PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Arif Khokar writes: > > > One concern I have regarding this idea is whether or not SMTP servers > > typically replace a Message-Id header set by the client. > > The clients are supposed to give

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

On 02/13/2017 11:41 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: Arif Khokar writes: One concern I have regarding this idea is whether or not SMTP servers typically replace a Message-Id header set by the client. The clients are supposed to give Message-IDs, but because some clients

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Arif Khokar writes: > One concern I have regarding this idea is whether or not SMTP servers > typically replace a Message-Id header set by the client. The clients are supposed to give Message-IDs, but because some clients fail to do so, SMTP server implementations are

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

On 02/13/2017 10:56 PM, Arif Khokar wrote: I wasn't aware of that expectation. My idea was to use NNTP as a way to facilitate the development of a new git utility that would serve as the inverse of git-send-email (sort of like the relationship between git format-patch and git am), rather than

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

On 02/13/2017 09:37 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: Hi Arif, On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Arif Khokar wrote: Thanks for the link. One thing that comes to mind that is that it may be better to just download the patches and then manually apply them afterwords rather than doing it in the script itself.

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

On 02/13/2017 02:21 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: Arif Khokar writes: ... I still think it would be better to be able to list the message-id values in the header or body of the cover letter message of a patch series (preferably the former) in order to facilitate

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Arif Khokar writes: > ... I > still think it would be better to be able to list the message-id > values in the header or body of the cover letter message of a patch > series (preferably the former) in order to facilitate downloading the > patches via NNTP from gmane or

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi Arif, On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Arif Khokar wrote: > On 02/10/2017 11:10 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > I recently adapted an old script I had to apply an entire patch > > > series given the GMane link to its cover letter: > > > > >

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

On 02/10/2017 11:10 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: Hi Arif, On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Johannes Schindelin wrote: I recently adapted an old script I had to apply an entire patch series given the GMane link to its cover letter:

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi Arif, On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, Arif Khokar wrote: > > > On 08/20/2016 03:57 PM, Jakub Narębski wrote: > > > > > But perhaps the problem is current lack of tooling in the opposite > > > direction, namely getting patches from mailing list and

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi Kuba, On Sun, 28 Aug 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote: > W dniu 25.08.2016 o 15:21, Johannes Schindelin pisze: > > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote: > >> W dniu 22.08.2016 o 15:18, Johannes Schindelin pisze: > >> > >>> So unfortunately this thread has devolved. Which is sad. Because all >

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hello Johannes, W dniu 25.08.2016 o 15:21, Johannes Schindelin pisze: > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote: >> W dniu 22.08.2016 o 15:18, Johannes Schindelin pisze: >> >>> So unfortunately this thread has devolved. Which is sad. Because all I >>> wanted is to have a change in Git's

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi Kuba & Duy, On Sun, 28 Aug 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote: > W dniu 22.08.2016 o 15:15, Duy Nguyen pisze: > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Johannes Schindelin > > wrote: > >> > >> My point stands. We are way more uninviting to contributors than > >> necessary. And

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

W dniu 25.08.2016 o 14:58, Johannes Schindelin pisze: > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Eric Wong wrote: >> Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> >>> I just want developers who are already familiar with Git, and come up with >>> an improvement to Git itself, to be able to contribute it

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

W dniu 22.08.2016 o 15:15, Duy Nguyen pisze: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Johannes Schindelin > wrote: >> >> My point stands. We are way more uninviting to contributors than >> necessary. And a huge part of the problem is that we require contributors >> to send

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi Arif, On Thu, 25 Aug 2016, Arif Khokar wrote: > On 08/25/2016 09:01 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016, Arif Khokar wrote: > > >>> I considered recommending this as some way to improve the review > >>> process. The problem, of course, is that it is very easy to craft

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi Kuba, On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote: > W dniu 22.08.2016 o 15:18, Johannes Schindelin pisze: > > > So unfortunately this thread has devolved. Which is sad. Because all I > > wanted is to have a change in Git's submission process that would not > > exclude *so many* developers.

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi Eric, On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Eric Wong wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > Now, with somebody like me who would lose a lot when destroying trust, > > it is highly unlikely. But it is possible that in between the hundreds > > of sincere contributors a bad

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi Arif, On Thu, 25 Aug 2016, Arif Khokar wrote: > On 08/24/2016 09:04 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Philip Oakley wrote: > > >> I do note that dscho's patches now have the extra footer (below the > >> three dashes) e.g. > >> > >> Published-As:

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi Eric, On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Eric Wong wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > I just want developers who are already familiar with Git, and come up with > > an improvement to Git itself, to be able to contribute it without having > > to pull out their hair in

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 06:49:38PM +, Eric Wong wrote: > > > > Given that public-inbox provides an NNTP interface, couldn't the ARTICLE > > > > NNTP command be used to easily retrieve the messages in a > > > > given patch series (at least compared to POP or

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Philip Oakley wrote: > > I do note that dscho's patches now have the extra footer (below the three > > dashes) e.g. > > > > Published-As: https://github.com/dscho/git/releases/tag/cat-file-filters-v1 > > Fetch-It-Via:

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 06:49:38PM +, Eric Wong wrote: > > > Given that public-inbox provides an NNTP interface, couldn't the ARTICLE > > > NNTP command be used to easily retrieve the messages in a > > > given patch series (at least compared to POP or IMAP). Perhaps > > > git-send-email

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Arif, > > On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, Arif Khokar wrote: > > > On 08/20/2016 03:57 PM, Jakub Narębski wrote: > > > > > But perhaps the problem is current lack of tooling in the opposite > > > direction, namely getting patches from mailing

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi Arif, On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, Arif Khokar wrote: > On 08/20/2016 03:57 PM, Jakub Narębski wrote: > > > But perhaps the problem is current lack of tooling in the opposite > > direction, namely getting patches from mailing list and applying them > > to GitHub repo, or Bitbucket, or GitLab.

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi Philip, On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Philip Oakley wrote: > From: "Duy Nguyen" > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Johannes Schindelin > > wrote: > > > My point stands. We are way more uninviting to contributors than > > > necessary. And a huge part

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Eric Wong wrote: > > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Eric Wong wrote: > > > > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > > > > > Old dogs claim

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

From: "Duy Nguyen" On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: My point stands. We are way more uninviting to contributors than necessary. And a huge part of the problem is that we require contributors to send their patches

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 09:55:54AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > It was not my intend to start this discussion again with my initial email. > I rather wanted to point out how I make progress in doing my own > tooling. > > I mean if email works well for Junio (both as a maintainer as > well as a

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

W dniu 22.08.2016 o 15:18, Johannes Schindelin pisze: > So unfortunately this thread has devolved. Which is sad. Because all I > wanted is to have a change in Git's submission process that would not > exclude *so many* developers. That is really all I care about. Not about > tools. Not about open

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi Stefan, On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Stefan Beller wrote: > >> I see a choice of mail client as no different than a choice of text > >> editor. Neither my mail client or text editor is heavily customized. > >> The key feature I rely on from both tools is piping data to external > >> commands. > > >

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi Eric, On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Eric Wong wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Eric Wong wrote: > > > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > > > Old dogs claim the mail list-approach works for them. Nope. > > > >

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > My point stands. We are way more uninviting to contributors than > necessary. And a huge part of the problem is that we require contributors > to send their patches inlined into whitespace-preserving mails.

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi Peff, On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:42:34PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > BTW I take this thread as yet another proof that people are unhappy > > with mail list-based review: if you have to build *that much* tooling > > around it (and Peff &

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

W dniu 19.08.2016 o 17:03, Jeff King pisze: [...] > There is nothing wrong with building tooling around your workflow. If we > had a GitHub-based workflow, I'd build tooling around that, too. One of > the things I _like_ about a mail-based workflow is how easy it is to > build that tooling, and

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Eric Wong wrote: > > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > Old dogs claim the mail list-approach works for them. Nope. Doesn't. > > > Else you would not have written all those custom scripts.

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Stefan Beller wrote: > Maybe we should invent a patch format that copes with broken whitespace? No redundant new formats, please. MIME attachments are already widely-supported and fine by me. But it's not my call for git. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

It was not my intend to start this discussion again with my initial email. I rather wanted to point out how I make progress in doing my own tooling. I mean if email works well for Junio (both as a maintainer as well as a contributor) and Jeff as a contributor, then I can adapt my workflow to

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi Eric, On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Eric Wong wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > Old dogs claim the mail list-approach works for them. Nope. Doesn't. > > Else you would not have written all those custom scripts. > > git and cogito started as a bunch of custom

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi, On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Eric Wong writes: > > > unsubscribe: meta+unsubscr...@public-inbox.org > > Did you mean this, really? FWIW I do not see this line in my original mail from Eric. Ciao, Dscho -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:42:34PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > BTW I take this thread as yet another proof that people are unhappy with > mail list-based review: if you have to build *that much* tooling around it > (and Peff & Junio certainly have a megaton of advanced and sophisticated >

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Johannes Schindelin wrote: > BTW I take this thread as yet another proof that people are unhappy with > mail list-based review: if you have to build *that much* tooling around it > (and Peff & Junio certainly have a megaton of advanced and sophisticated > tooling

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Eric Wong writes: > I see a choice of mail client as no different than a choice of > text editor. Neither my mail client or text editor is heavily > customized. The key feature I rely on from both tools is piping > data to external commands. FWIW, that applies to me exactly,

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Hi Stefan, On Tue, 16 Aug 2016, Stefan Beller wrote: > > BTW in light of the discussion we are having elsewhere I just need to > > point out that it was *dramatically* faster for me to edit run-command.c, > > find "hooks/" and adjust the code manually than it would have been to save > > the diff

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Eric Wong wrote: > Currently for web users, I suggest: > > curl $URL >tmpXXX > > # open tmp and tag+copy to patchesXXX using MUA of choice: > # (also seems to be what Jeff describes): > mutt -f tmpXXX > > git am patches I should add this

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller writes: > > * Should the public-inbox offer another link to patches 1-n, without > > the cover letter? Or should it add instructions: > > > > If this is a patch series you can apply it locally as: > >

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Jeff King writes: > For my workflow, it is not about "initial skip", but rather just "skip > emails that don't have patches in them at all". OK. That is different from "the subject line says 0/N so let's skip". If we can safely determine that there is no patch in a message,

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Stefan Beller writes: > In your work flow, how do you respect the cover letter? > e.g. in 3787e3c16ced: > > Merge branch 'ew/http-backend-batch-headers' > > The http-backend (the server-side component of smart-http > transport) used to trickle the HTTP header one

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller writes: > >> So as a discussion starter: >> * Should git am skip a patch 00/XX automatically ? > > No. My preference is to add "--initial-skip=", though. > > When I receive a patch

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:10:42AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller writes: > > > So as a discussion starter: > > * Should git am skip a patch 00/XX automatically ? > > No. My preference is to add "--initial-skip=", though. > > When I receive a patch series to

Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

Stefan Beller writes: > So as a discussion starter: > * Should git am skip a patch 00/XX automatically ? No. My preference is to add "--initial-skip=", though. When I receive a patch series to reroll another series, I somehow know and verify that earlier N patches have not

Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

> BTW in light of the discussion we are having elsewhere I just need to > point out that it was *dramatically* faster for me to edit run-command.c, > find "hooks/" and adjust the code manually than it would have been to save > the diff and apply it. > > That's because I do not have advanced