guix-patches debbugs appears to mangle patches

  • Done
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
5 participants
  • ng0
  • Eric Blake
  • Leo Famulari
  • Ludovic Courtès
  • Glenn Morris
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Leo Famulari
Severity
normal

Debbugs page

L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 4 Mar 2017 14:54
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
20170304225456.GB19780@jasmine
Git has a simple workflow for using email, with `git send-email` and
`git am`.

The guix-patches debbugs thing causes a regression in this workflow by
rewriting the commit messages to include the debbugs ticket number.

So, a commit that begins with this:

gnu: gitolite: Fix shebangs in hooks.

... becomes this:

bug#25966: [PATCH 2/2] gnu: gitolite: Fix shebangs in hooks.

Am I missing something, or is debbugs really rewriting the patches?
N
N
ng0 wrote on 5 Mar 2017 04:34
(name . Leo Famulari)(address . leo@famulari.name)(address . 25969@debbugs.gnu.org)
20170305123413.r6agl3chv5344wg2@abyayala
On 17-03-04 17:54:56, Leo Famulari wrote:
Toggle quote (19 lines)
> Git has a simple workflow for using email, with `git send-email` and
> `git am`.
>
> The guix-patches debbugs thing causes a regression in this workflow by
> rewriting the commit messages to include the debbugs ticket number.
>
> So, a commit that begins with this:
>
> gnu: gitolite: Fix shebangs in hooks.
>
> ... becomes this:
>
> bug#25966: [PATCH 2/2] gnu: gitolite: Fix shebangs in hooks.
>
> Am I missing something, or is debbugs really rewriting the patches?
>
>
>

Possibly. Though I see some people started to just attach the git
format-patch patches.
Maybe we should look at / ask other projects how they deal with this for
debbugs?
N
N
ng0 wrote on 5 Mar 2017 04:37
(name . Leo Famulari)(address . leo@famulari.name)(address . 25969@debbugs.gnu.org)
20170305123729.sypt6ha77jeqg62z@abyayala
On 17-03-04 17:54:56, Leo Famulari wrote:
Toggle quote (19 lines)
> Git has a simple workflow for using email, with `git send-email` and
> `git am`.
>
> The guix-patches debbugs thing causes a regression in this workflow by
> rewriting the commit messages to include the debbugs ticket number.
>
> So, a commit that begins with this:
>
> gnu: gitolite: Fix shebangs in hooks.
>
> ... becomes this:
>
> bug#25966: [PATCH 2/2] gnu: gitolite: Fix shebangs in hooks.
>
> Am I missing something, or is debbugs really rewriting the patches?
>
>
>

885227386855e446e653d958c38b6bbcfc2a24ca and the patch afterwards was
sent with git send-email (after I was assigned an issue-id) and if Kei
didn't fix it, they were not altered in subject etc.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 6 Mar 2017 02:16
(name . Leo Famulari)(address . leo@famulari.name)
87a88yww0m.fsf@gnu.org
Hello!

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:

Toggle quote (13 lines)
> The guix-patches debbugs thing causes a regression in this workflow by
> rewriting the commit messages to include the debbugs ticket number.
>
> So, a commit that begins with this:
>
> gnu: gitolite: Fix shebangs in hooks.
>
> ... becomes this:
>
> bug#25966: [PATCH 2/2] gnu: gitolite: Fix shebangs in hooks.
>
> Am I missing something, or is debbugs really rewriting the patches?

Good question. Maybe Glenn and others at help-debbugs have an idea?

Thanks,
Ludo’.
G
G
Glenn Morris wrote on 6 Mar 2017 09:46
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)
nashmqz4aw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org
Ludovic Courtès wrote:

Toggle quote (19 lines)
> Hello!
>
> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:
>
>> The guix-patches debbugs thing causes a regression in this workflow by
>> rewriting the commit messages to include the debbugs ticket number.
>>
>> So, a commit that begins with this:
>>
>> gnu: gitolite: Fix shebangs in hooks.
>>
>> ... becomes this:
>>
>> bug#25966: [PATCH 2/2] gnu: gitolite: Fix shebangs in hooks.
>>
>> Am I missing something, or is debbugs really rewriting the patches?
>
> Good question. Maybe Glenn and others at help-debbugs have an idea?

I think it's over the top to describe this as "mangling" or "rewriting"
patches. The system relies on adding a bug number to the subject, so
that replies to the maintainer address can be associated with the right
bug. I don't see any prospect of this changing. If you are using a tool
that is sensitive to the subject line in emails, I can only suggest
using eg a trivial sed command to take out the bug number before passing
the mail to your tool.
E
E
Eric Blake wrote on 6 Mar 2017 09:54
398d7c29-a7c4-f600-49f1-e7db9562b509@redhat.com
On 03/06/2017 11:46 AM, Glenn Morris wrote:
Toggle quote (29 lines)
> Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:
>>
>>> The guix-patches debbugs thing causes a regression in this workflow by
>>> rewriting the commit messages to include the debbugs ticket number.
>>>
>>> So, a commit that begins with this:
>>>
>>> gnu: gitolite: Fix shebangs in hooks.
>>>
>>> ... becomes this:
>>>
>>> bug#25966: [PATCH 2/2] gnu: gitolite: Fix shebangs in hooks.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something, or is debbugs really rewriting the patches?
>>
>> Good question. Maybe Glenn and others at help-debbugs have an idea?
>
> I think it's over the top to describe this as "mangling" or "rewriting"
> patches. The system relies on adding a bug number to the subject, so
> that replies to the maintainer address can be associated with the right
> bug. I don't see any prospect of this changing. If you are using a tool
> that is sensitive to the subject line in emails, I can only suggest
> using eg a trivial sed command to take out the bug number before passing
> the mail to your tool.

'git am' already knows how to strip anything inside one or more [text]
prefix of the subject. I don't know how hard it would be to convince the
GNU debbugs instance to output '[bug#25969] ' instead of its current
'bug#25969: ' (and of course to also recognize both spellings on input,
when checking for existing mails in reply to existing bugs), but such a
tweak would play nicer with a git patch workflow.

--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment: signature.asc
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 5 May 2017 11:29
control message for bug #25969
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87pofn2m4f.fsf@gnu.org
tags 25969 notabug
close 25969
?
Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 25969@patchwise.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it
mumi current 25969
Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)
mumi am -- -s
Or, compose a reply to this issue
mumi compose
Or, send patches to this issue
mumi send-email *.patch