Re: [PATCH/RFC] Support --append-trailer in cherry-pick and revert
- Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 12:34:41 +0900
- From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Support --append-trailer in cherry-pick and revert
Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> So if we are comfortable with saying that this is a new feature to have
> the machine-readable trailer version, and there isn't a robust way to
> get historical revert information (because there really isn't), then
> I think we can just punt on any kind of trailer-normalization magic.
Yes, I do consider that the original suggestion was two-part
- cherry-pick did have machine readable info, but by historical
accident, it is shaped differently from "trailers", so we'd
transition into the new format.
- revert did not have machine readble info at all, so we are adding
one, even though it is not that interesting as cherry-pick (for
the reasons you stated in an earlier message in this thread).
So my "honest answer" is your #1, "sorry, there was no
machine-readable version back then", for reverts. We do not have
such a problem with cherry-pick luckily ;-)
>  Thinking back on reverts I have done, they are often _not_
> straight-up reverts. For example, I may end up dropping half of a
> commit, but leaving some traces of it in place in order to build up
> the correct solution on top (i.e., fixing whatever problem caused me
> to revert in the first place). I list those as "this is morally a
> revert of 1234abcd...", which is definitely not machine readable. ;)
Yup, and it is debatable if it even makes sense to add the machine
readable trailer for such a commit. A human-made claim that it is a
"moral equivalent of reverting X" may not look any different from a
"textual revert of X" to a machine, but the actual patch text would
be quite different---unless the machine reading it understands
"moral equivalence", letting it blindly take on faith whatever
humans say may not be a good idea.