Re: [RFC PATCH] commit -v: strip diffs and submodule shortlogs from the commit message
From: Jeff King <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:59:16
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [RFC PATCH] commit -v: strip diffs and submodule shortlogs from the commit message · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c index 6ab4605..091a6e7 100644 --- a/builtin/commit.c +++ b/builtin/commit.c@@ -1602,9 +1602,9 @@ int cmd_commit(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) /* Truncate the message just before the diff, if any. */ if (verbose) { - p = strstr(sb.buf, "\ndiff --git "); - if (p != NULL) - strbuf_setlen(&sb, p - sb.buf + 1); + p = strstr(sb.buf, wt_status_diff_divider); + if ((p != NULL) && (p > sb.buf) && (p[-1] == '\n')) + strbuf_setlen(&sb, p - sb.buf);
I think your check for a preceding newline is too strict. If I delete everything before the scissor line (e.g., because I am trying to abort the commit), we should still remove the diff. With your patch, we do not, and a commit message consisting solely of the diff. So I think you want: if (p && (p == sb.buf || p[-1] == '\n'))
+ fprintf(s->fp, _("# The diff below will be removed when keeping the previous line.\n"));
I found this hard to parse, I think because of the "keeping" (why would
I not keep it?), and because you are talking about lines above and
below. It is not as accurate to say:
# ------------------ >8 --------------------
# Everything below this line will be removed.
because it is technically the line above that is the cutoff. But I think
the meaning is clear, and it is simpler to parse.
I do think it would be simpler with a single line. I know handling the
i18n was a question there, but I think we should be fine as long as we
check for the exact bytes we wrote. Surely gettext can do something
like:
magic = _("# Everything below this line will be removed");
fprintf(fh, "%s", magic);
...
p = strstr(magic);
I don't know what guarantees on string lifetime gettext gives us, but
the worst case is that we simply strdup the result.
I suppose it's possible that the translated string could have utf8 with
multiple representations, and the user's editor normalizes the text in a
different way than we wrote it when it saves the result. I don't know if
that is worth caring about or not; it seems kind of insane.
-Peff