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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: 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 12:48:22 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqlh4krkop.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160411184535-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> (Michael S. Tsirkin's message of "Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:41:49 +0300")

"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.  Once I decide to switch
back to the topic branch after receiving Acked-by and Reviewed-by,
I'd rather "rebase -i" to directly record them at that point, with
"reword".

If the "trailers" stuff is packaged into an easier-to-use format to
use with "git commit --amend", I may use that together with "exec"
to automatically add these while doing so, but again, I do not see
any need for fake empty commits out of received e-mails in the
resulting workflow.

That does not at all mean nobody other than Michael would use it,
though.