Re: [PATCH v2] commit -c/-C/--amend: reset timestamp and authorship to committer with --reset-author

2009/11/4 Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]:

Erick Mattos [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Cutting --author away would make impossible for someone to force a new author
with a new timestamp in case he is templating.  As an example he can be using
the --author because he is doing a change in a computer not his own or
something alike.

Sorry, but I cannot help feeling a bit frustrated and mildly irritated.

I had an impression that we have already established that setting the
author with --author="Somebody Else <s@b.e>" and committing with the
current time does not make much sense from the workflow point of view long
time ago in this thread.

The mail transport might have mangled the name, and when using --amend (or
read-tree followed by commit -c), it is handy to fix the mangled name by
using --author, but in such a case you would actively want to keep the
timestamp obtained from the e-mail via either --amend or -c.

But allowing this combination, even though it might not make much sense,
is just giving extra length to the rope, so it may not be such a big deal.

I don't see a reason to be hassled by a suggestion, made because I
didn't really was confident you got it right from me from the previous
email flood.  No big deal.

I didn't feel motivated enough to read the whole thing while other patches
are in my inbox, so I instead ran diff between the previous one (without
my suggestion today) and this round.

I really can't imagine all the work you have.  Probably very hard.

As we were doing before, you were saying what was wrong to you and I
was fixing it to your
demands.  So I imagine that you are doing the diffs over my versions.

I haven't got a change in that way of working.

I see that you fixed a lot of grammar in the log message of my earlier
suggestion, all of which looked very good.  Also you added a check in the
program to make sure that --renew is given only when -C/-c/--amend is
given, which is also good.  Neither of our set of tests checks this
condition, though.  IOW, we would need to add something like this at the
end of my version (adjust to --reset-author for your version):

   test_expect_success '--mine should be rejected without -c/-C/--amend' '
           git checkout Initial &&
           echo "Test 7" >>foo &&
           test_tick &&
           test_must_fail git commit -a --mine -m done
   '

I am not sure why you insist to use your version of test script and keep
changing it, though.  It looks a lot worse even only after reviewing its
early part.

As I told you before I thought you were wanting me to do it.  I didn't
get a change about me working under your supervision as the coder...

I know anyone in this list is able to code those or any other change.
It is just about who is available to work at anything in particular.

 - author_id runs an extra grep that is unnecessary.  The separation of
  _id and _timestamp are unnecessary if you checked against an expected
  author ident and timestamp as a single string, i.e.

author_id or author_timestamp could be changed independently and a
single string would find it corrected in any case.  The new option
ought to change both as expected in the algorithm.

  FRIGATE='Frigate [off-list ref]' ;# do this only once at the beginning
  ...
  git commit -C HEAD --reset-author --author="$FRIGATE" &&
  echo "author $FRIGATE $GIT_AUTHOR_TIME" >expect &&
  author_header HEAD >actual &&
  test_cmp expect actual

If you make my script fail in any of the checks then you are going to
have "trash..." folder holding the full message log history and the
file foo with each step recorded on it with the "initials" separating
the -C, -c and --amend.  This way you can also check the differences
in the author log timestamp among cited options because the "initials"
make a barrier in between.  I made it purposely to become easier to
audit.

  This becomes irrelevant if we don't support mixing --renew and
  --author, of course.

It won't be supported.

 - message_body() now has a backslash whose sole purpose is to be an
  eyesore.

No backslash then.

 - initiate_test() does not string the commands together with &&

It is not something difficult to add.

I might change my mind after I take a break, review others' patches, and
spend some time on my own hacking on other topics before revisiting this
patch, but at this point I find that reviewing newer rounds of this series
has rather quickly diminishing value, and more time is being spent on
teaching shell scripting to you rather than on polishing the end result.

Now you are being impolite and then I am not saying anything back.

Sorry, but I cannot help feeling a bit frustrated and mildly irritated.
Time to take a break and attend other topics for a change.

Again:  I don't see a reason to be irritated by a suggestion...

Sorry fellow.  I just tried to help.  Let me know if you want my work anytime.

And sorry for any communication problem we had, taking in account that
I am not a native english speaker.

Best regards.