Re: [RFC-PATCH v2 2/2] send-email: quote-email quotes the message body

Tom Russello [off-list ref] writes:

Currently, `send-email` without `--compose` implies `--annotate`.

I don't get it. Did you mean s/without/with/? Even if so, this is not
exactly true: "git send-email --compose -1" will open the editor only
for the cover-letter, while adding --annotate will also open it for the
patch.

Keeping that behavior when using `--quote-email` populates the patch file with
the quoted message body, and the patch is saved no matter what. If the user
closes his editor and then exits `send-email`, changes will be saved.

Should we keep the current behavior for the user, keeping the changes (including
the quoted message body) in the patch, or should we discard them?

(Note: we discussed this off-list already, but I'll try to summarize my
thoughts here)

I don't have strong opinion on this, but I think there's a difference
between launching the editor directly on the input patch files
(resulting in _user_'s edit being done directly on them) and having the
script modify it in-place (resulting in automatic changes done directly
on the user's files).

I usually use "git send-email" directly without using "git
format-patch", so I'm not the best juge. But I can imagine a flow like

1) run "git send-email *.patch"

2) start editting

3) notice there's something wrong, give up for now (answer 'q' when git
   send-email prompts for confirmation, or kill it via Control-C in a
   terminal)

4) run "git send-email *.patch" again

5) be happy that changes done at 2) are still there.

With --quote-email, it's different. The scenario above would result in

5') WTF, why is the email quoted twice?

Unfortunately, I don't really have a solution for this. My first thought
was that we should copy the files to a temporary location before
starting the editor (that what I'm used to when using "git send-email"
without "git format-patch"), but that would prevent 5) above.

I'd add "in the introductory message".

+	while (<$fh>) {
+		# Only for files containing crlf line endings
+		s/\r//g;

The comment doesn't really say what it does.

What about "turn crlf line endings into lf-only"?

 } elsif ($annotate) {
-	do_edit(@files);
+	if ($quote_email) {
+		my $quote_email_filename = ($repo ?
+			tempfile(".gitsendemail.msg.XXXXXX",
+				DIR => $repo->repo_path()) :
+			tempfile(".gitsendemail.msg.XXXXXX",
+				DIR => "."))[1];
+
+		do_insert_quoted_message($quote_email_filename, $files[0]);
+
+		my $tmp = $files[0];
+		$files[0] = $quote_email_filename;
+
+		do_edit(@files);
+
+		# Erase the original patch
+		move($quote_email_filename, $tmp);
+		$files[0] = $tmp;

When writing comment, always try to ask the question "why?" more than
"what?". This part is possibly controversial, think about a contributor
finding this piece of code later without having followed the current
conversation. He'd probably expect an explanation about why you need a
temp file here and not elsewhere.

+	open my $c, "<", $original_file
+	or die "Failed to open $original_file : " . $!;
+
+	open my $c2, ">", $tmp_file
+		or die "Failed to open $tmp_file : " . $!;

No space before :.

When the spec says "if --compose ... then ...", "after the triple-dash",
and "in the first patch", one would expect at least one test with
--compose and one without, something to check that the insertion was
done below the triple-dash, and one test with two patches, checking that
the second patch is not altered by --quote-email.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

On 05/28/16 17:01, Matthieu Moy wrote:

quoted

Currently, `send-email` without `--compose` implies `--annotate`.

I don't get it. Did you mean s/without/with/? Even if so, this is not
exactly true: "git send-email --compose -1" will open the editor only
for the cover-letter, while adding --annotate will also open it for the
patch.

We meant that the default behavior of `--quote-email` (i.e. without
--compose enabled) will open the editor with the given patches in
argument and will quote the message body in the first one.

(Note: we discussed this off-list already, but I'll try to summarize my
thoughts here)

I don't have strong opinion on this, but I think there's a difference
between launching the editor directly on the input patch files
(resulting in _user_'s edit being done directly on them) and having the
script modify it in-place (resulting in automatic changes done directly
on the user's files).

I usually use "git send-email" directly without using "git
format-patch", so I'm not the best juge. But I can imagine a flow like

1) run "git send-email *.patch"

2) start editting

3) notice there's something wrong, give up for now (answer 'q' when git
   send-email prompts for confirmation, or kill it via Control-C in a
   terminal)

4) run "git send-email *.patch" again

5) be happy that changes done at 2) are still there.

With --quote-email, it's different. The scenario above would result in

5') WTF, why is the email quoted twice?

Actually the Control-C during the edition will cancel all the
annotations written (including the cited email).

Unfortunately, I don't really have a solution for this. My first thought
was that we should copy the files to a temporary location before
starting the editor (that what I'm used to when using "git send-email"
without "git format-patch"), but that would prevent 5) above.

It's already what we did: the first original patch is copied in a
temporary file. However, if the edition went well (i.e. the editor
closed by the user), the temporary file will erase the original one.

quoted

@@ -109,7 +109,10 @@ is not set, this will be prompted for.
 --quote-email=<email_file>::
 	Reply to the given email and automatically populate the "To:",

"Cc:" and

quoted

 	"In-Reply-To:" fields. If `--compose` is set, this will also fill the
-	subject field with "Re: [<email_file>'s subject]".
+	subject field with "Re: [<email_file>'s subject]" and quote the

message body

quoted

+	of <email_file>.

I'd add "in the introductory message".

Agreed.

quoted

+	while (<$fh>) {
+		# Only for files containing crlf line endings
+		s/\r//g;

The comment doesn't really say what it does.

What about "turn crlf line endings into lf-only"?

Yes, I completely agree this suggestion.

When writing comment, always try to ask the question "why?" more than
"what?". This part is possibly controversial, think about a contributor
finding this piece of code later without having followed the current
conversation. He'd probably expect an explanation about why you need a
temp file here and not elsewhere.

Thank you for the advice, I'll keep it in mind.

quoted

+	open my $c, "<", $original_file
+	or die "Failed to open $original_file : " . $!;
+
+	open my $c2, ">", $tmp_file
+		or die "Failed to open $tmp_file : " . $!;

No space before :.

Sorry, I copied the previous error messages.

When the spec says "if --compose ... then ...", "after the triple-dash",
and "in the first patch", one would expect at least one test with
--compose and one without, something to check that the insertion was
done below the triple-dash, and one test with two patches, checking that
the second patch is not altered by --quote-email.

Yes, indeed. I'll add these tests in the next version.

Thank you for the review.