Dan Johnson writes:
> I was assuming Peter would accept the patch, and reply with a "in the
> future, please submit the output of format-patch", thus correcting the
> submitter's behavior. This warning would serve someone who did not
> know that they wanted the output of format-patch, and hopeful
On 09/13/2012 12:19 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Dan Johnson writes:
>
>>> Not really. If we start encouraging people to use "git show" output
>>> as a kosher input to "am", we would have to support such use
>>> forever, and we end up painting ourselves in a corner we cannot get
>>> out of easily
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Dan Johnson writes:
>
>>> Not really. If we start encouraging people to use "git show" output
>>> as a kosher input to "am", we would have to support such use
>>> forever, and we end up painting ourselves in a corner we cannot get
>>> out
Dan Johnson writes:
>> Not really. If we start encouraging people to use "git show" output
>> as a kosher input to "am", we would have to support such use
>> forever, and we end up painting ourselves in a corner we cannot get
>> out of easily.
>
> If git am emitted a warning when accepting "git
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
>
>> Well, if that happens, maybe we could regexp match on
>> "[[:alnum:]_-]+: /someexprthatlookslikeanemailaddress/" ?
>
> I doubt that would be even reliably done.
>
>> But we could
>> also just wait to cross that brid
Peter Jones writes:
> Well, if that happens, maybe we could regexp match on
> "[[:alnum:]_-]+: /someexprthatlookslikeanemailaddress/" ?
I doubt that would be even reliably done.
> But we could
> also just wait to cross that bridge until we get to it?
Not really. If we start encouraging people
On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 13:06 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
>
> > This patch adds the ability for "git am" to accept patches in the format
> > generated by "git show". Some people erroneously use "git show" instead
> > of "git format-patch", and it's nice as a maintainer to be
Peter Jones writes:
> This patch adds the ability for "git am" to accept patches in the format
> generated by "git show". Some people erroneously use "git show" instead
> of "git format-patch", and it's nice as a maintainer to be able to
> easily take their patch rather than going back and forth
Peter Jones writes:
> Let me put it a different way - if you won't accept git-am handling "git
> show" output because "git show" has output that wasn't designed to be
> parsed ever, would you be opposed to a patch that switches the "git
> show" output to be something usable?
The output from the
On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 10:32 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> We do not want to apply "git show" output that munges the log
> message, period.
>
> If you want to give patches to somebody (or to yourself) via e-mail
> or via sneaker-net, "git format-patch" is there for you. Do not
> butcher "am" to a
Matthieu Moy writes:
> Peter Jones writes:
>
>> Subject: [PATCH] [git-am] Handle "git show" output correctly
>
> The convention in Git is ": " (i.e. no
> brackets around git-am, just am: and no capital for Handle).
>
> My other concerns (name of stgit, multi-lines subject lines and lack of
> doc
Peter Jones writes:
> Subject: [PATCH] [git-am] Handle "git show" output correctly
The convention in Git is ": " (i.e. no
brackets around git-am, just am: and no capital for Handle).
My other concerns (name of stgit, multi-lines subject lines and lack of
documentation) still hold.
--
Matthieu
12 matches
Mail list logo
