Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/2] place cherry pick line below commit title
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-10-04 17:25:20
Jonathan Tan [off-list ref] writes:
One alternative is to postpone this decision by changing sequencer only (and not trailer) to tolerate other lines in the trailer. This would make them even more divergent (sequencer supports arbitrary lines while trailer doesn't), but they were divergent already (sequencer supports "(cherry picked by" but trailer doesn't).
Given that we internally do not use the "trailers" for anything real, anything you decide to do here would be an improvement ;-) Before, users couldn't even get any of the examples (below, from your message) recognized as trailer blocks.
Signed-off-by: A [off-list ref]
[This has nothing to do with the above line]
Signed-off-by: B [off-list ref]
and:
Link 1: a link
a continuation of the above
and:
Signed-off-by: Some body [off-list ref] (comment
on two lines)
So I would say it is perfectly OK if your update works only for
cases we can clearly define the semantics for. For example, we can
even start with something simple like:
* A RFC822-header like line, together with any number of whitespace
indented lines that immediately follow it, will be taken as a
single logical trailer element (with embedded LF in it if it uses
the "line folding"). For the purpose of "replace", the entire
single logical trailer element is replaced.
* A line that begins with "(cherry picked from" and "[" becomes a
single logical trailer element. No continuation of anything
fancy.
* A line with any other shape is a garbage line in a trailer
block. It is kept in its place, but because it does not even
have <token> part, it will not participate in locating with
"trailer.where", "trailer.ifexists", etc.
A block of lines that appear as the last paragraph in a commit
message is a trailer block if and only if certain number or
percentage of lines are non-garbage lines according to the above
definition.
The operations done by the codepaths in the core part of the system
are much simpler subset of what "interpret-trailers" wants to
support, namely,
- append "(cherry picked from X)" at the end.
- append "S-o-b:" at the end.
- append "S-o-b:" unless the same line appears as the last line in
the existing trailer block.
and these are quite compatible with a simplified definition of what
a logical line is illustrated in the above example, I would think.
I wonder if we can share a new helper function to do the detection
(and classification) of a trailer block and parsing the logical
lines out of a commit log message. The function signature could be
as simple as taking a single <const char *> (or a strbuf) that holds
a commit log message, and splitting it out into something like:
struct {
const char *whole;
const char *end_of_message_proper;
struct {
const char *token;
const char *contents;
} *trailer;
int alloc_trailers, nr_trailers;
};
where
- whole points at the first byte of the input, i.e. the beginning
of the commit message buffer.
- end-of-message-proper points at the first byte of the trailer
block into the buffer at "whole".
- token is a canonical header name for easy comparison for
interpret-trailers (you can use NULL for garbage lines, and made
up token like "[bracket]" and "(cherrypick)" that would not clash
with real tokens like "Signed-off-by").
- contents is the bytes on the logical line, including the header
part
E.g. an element in trailer[] array may say
{
.token = "Signed-off-by",
.contents = "Signed-Off-By: Some Body [off-list ref]\n",
}
With something like that, you can manipulate the "insert at ...",
"replace", etc. in the trailer[] array and then produce an updated
commit message fairly easily (i.e. copy out the bytes beginning at
"whole" up to "end_of_message_proper", then iterate over trailer[]
array and show their contents field). The codepaths in the core
part only need to know
- how to check the last item in trailer[] array to see if it ends
with the same sign-off as they are trying to add.
- how to append one new element to the trailer[] array.
- reproduce an updated commit log message after the above.
Hmm?