Re: [PATCH 1/4] rebase -i: add ack action

From: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, bafain@gmail.com, sunshine@sunshineco.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] rebase -i: add ack action
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:03:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <vpqr3ebnc9w.fsf@anie.imag.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160411225222-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> (Michael S. Tsirkin's message of "Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:55:27 +0300")

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:

> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:48:22PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Repost, sorry about the noise.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 05:36:45PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> >> Hi Michael,
>> >> 
>> >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > So far I only see examples of adding footers. If that's all we can think
>> >> > up, why code in all this genericity?
>> >> 
>> >> Because as far as I can see, the only benefitor of your patches would be
>> >> you.
>> >> 
>> >> Ciao,
>> >> Johannes
>> >
>> > This seems unlikely.  Just merging the patches won't benefit me directly
>> > - I have maintained them in my tree for a couple of years now with very
>> > little effort.  For sure, I could benefit if they get merged and then
>> > someone improves them further - that was the point of posting them - but
>> > then I'm not the only benefitor.
>> >
>> > The workflow including getting acks for patches by email is not handled
>> > well by upstream git right now.  It would surprise me if no one uses it
>> > if it's upstream, as you seem to suggest.  But maybe most people moved
>> > on and just do pull requests instead.
>> 
>> I doubt I would use this in its current form myself.
>> 
>> Patch series I receive are all queued on their own separate topic
>> branches, and having to switch branches only to create a fake empty
>> commit to record received Acked-by and Reviewed-by is a chore that
>> serves only half of what needs to be done.
>
> Interesting. An empty commit would be rather easy to create on any
> branch, not just the current one, using git-commit-tree.

This "modify a branch without checking-it out" makes me think of "git
notes". It may make sense to teach "git rebase -i" to look for notes in
rebased commits and append them to the commit message when applying.
Just an idea, not necessarily a good one ;-).

> Does it sounds interesting if I teach
> git ack to get an active branch as a parameter?

I think "ack" is not a good name for this feature: you use it to append
"Acked-by", but it can be used to append any trailer (for example,
Reviewed-by: would make complete sense too). I think using a better name
would help the discussion (to remove the "it's my use-case" biais).
Perhaps "append"?

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/