Re: diffstat wierdness with 'git format-patch' output

Greg KH [off-list ref] writes:

Hm, in looking at it closer, it's probably the last two lines of the
file, the signature that git format-patch adds to the message:
	-- 
	1.2.0

If that is the case, it's unfortunate that diffstat is broken
and is not properly counting lines to tell which lines are part
of the patch and which lines are not.

Have you tried "git apply --stat" instead?

Any way to suppress these?

Sorry, there is no option to disable that, but the stuff is
GPLv2 so you can do whatever ;-).

The string "-- \n" is an established convention to mark the
beginning of the signature (or whatever inmaterial stuff that
follow the message contents), so changing the marker is
pointless -- if we want the option it should be to delete those
two lines altogether.

I personally find it useful to see the trend of version of tools
people use on the public mailing list, and that was the primary
reason it is there.

Have you tried "git apply --stat --summary" instead?

On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:09:30PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Greg KH [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Hm, in looking at it closer, it's probably the last two lines of the
file, the signature that git format-patch adds to the message:
	-- 
	1.2.0

If that is the case, it's unfortunate that diffstat is broken
and is not properly counting lines to tell which lines are part
of the patch and which lines are not.

Have you tried "git apply --stat" instead?

How would that work after I've allready applied the patches to a branch?

quoted

Any way to suppress these?

Sorry, there is no option to disable that, but the stuff is
GPLv2 so you can do whatever ;-).

Bah, make me go create a patch :)

The string "-- \n" is an established convention to mark the
beginning of the signature (or whatever inmaterial stuff that
follow the message contents), so changing the marker is
pointless -- if we want the option it should be to delete those
two lines altogether.

Oh I understand what it is and it does follow the proper convention.
Maybe we just need an extra line of padding in there before the
signature or something... I'll go play with it.

I personally find it useful to see the trend of version of tools
people use on the public mailing list, and that was the primary
reason it is there.

Why not just add a "X-Git-Version: 1.2.0" flag to the message instead?

thanks,

greg k-h

On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:34:20PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

I personally find it useful to see the trend of version of tools
people use on the public mailing list, and that was the primary
reason it is there.

Why not just add a "X-Git-Version: 1.2.0" flag to the message instead?

And here's a patch that does just that.

-----------------

Subject: change git-format-patch to put the git version in the mail header

This is more like other tools that create mail messages, and fixes an
issue of the diffstat program thinking that an extra line was removed
from the patch.

Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>

diff --git a/git-format-patch.sh b/git-format-patch.sh
index e54c9e4..5f6a921 100755
--- a/git-format-patch.sh
+++ b/git-format-patch.sh

@@ -216,6 +216,7 @@ while (<FH>) {
 
 	    print "From: $author_ident\n";
 	    print "Date: $author_date\n";
+	    print "X-Git-Version: @@GIT_VERSION@@\n";
 	}
 	next;
     }

@@ -250,8 +251,6 @@ close FH or die "close $commsg pipe";
 	git-diff-tree -p $diff_opts "$commit" | git-apply --stat --summary
 	echo
 	git-diff-tree -p $diff_opts "$commit"
-	echo "-- "
-	echo "@@GIT_VERSION@@"
 
 	echo
 }

On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:42:56PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:

Hm, git-send-email doesn't see this, so it doesn't get sent out if you
use that tool.

I can fix that to just put the version number in the message too, like
it adds the "X-Mailer" field, if people think this is really worth it...

thanks,

greg k-h