Re: git-applymbox broken?

Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

quoted

Below is an example of the kind of patch that inspired me to relax the
rules on parsing in body headers (this comes from Andi Kleen quilt tree).

And this is wrong.

We should _not_ accept crappy patches, and then start guessing at what the 
person meant.

quoted

From the very beginning of git, I tried to make it extremely clear that 

there is never any guessing going on. We don't use "heuristics" except as 
a pure optimization: ie a heuristic can have a _performance_ impact, but 
it must never EVER have semantic impact.

SCM's are not about guessing. They are about saving the _exact_ state that 
the user asked for. No "let's try to be nice", no gray areas.

If the new git-applymbox just takes random lines from the body of the 
email, and decides that they may be authorship information, then that is a 
BUG. The "From: " line in the middle of an email may well be about 
somebody having _discovered_ the bug, and we're quoting him as part of the 
explanation. It does NOT mean that it's about authorship.

So we should ONLY check for "From:" (and perhaps "Subject:" and "Date:") 
at the very top of the email body. NOWHERE ELSE.

The fact that somebody has a crappy quilt tree, and the fact that quilt is 
very much a "anything goes" kind of laissez faire system does not mean, 
and should NEVER mean that git becomes the same kind of mess of "let's do 
a best effort and try to guess what somebody means" kind of thing.

Ok. A reasonable position.  It would have been nice if you had squawked 
when I made that change: 2dec02b1ecafc47d4031d0a68a94c775a6a9ff9e

I thought I was explicit when I did it, oh well.

As for quilt being imperfect that among other things is why I
am slowly trying to make the tools play together better.  So people
can use the best tool for the job, which if the integration is tight
enough becomes a single tool.

I check and edit my emails before I apply them, and I try to teach the 
people who send them manners and what the rules are. THAT is the way to 
handle this, not by having the tool itself become unreliable and random

What are the rules?

This looks like something that needs to be Documented by
more than just the source of git-mailinfo.

The need to skip extra blank lines was a surprise to me.
In looking for documentation the best I could quickly
find was SubmittingPatches and it only Documents the From: and ---
lines.

Eric