[PATCH v2] commit -c/-C/--amend: reset timestamp and authorship to committer with --reset-author
|
|
Erick Mattos
|
When we use -c, -C, or --amend, we are trying one of two things: using
the source as a template or modifying a commit with corrections. When these options are used, the authorship and timestamp recorded in the newly created commit are always taken from the original commit. This is inconvenient when we just want to borrow the commit log message or when our change to the code is so significant that we should take over the authorship (with the blame for bugs we introduce, of course). The new --reset-author option is meant to solve this need by regenerating the timestamp and setting as the new author the committer or the one specified by --author option. Signed-off-by: Erick Mattos <[hidden email]> --- I have remade the testing script to let it easier for people to understand and to make it do all reasonable tests. I have made minor message log changes and as you can see by the third paragraph I am showing a different approach to option --author. Please read the following text: --author text says: "override author for commit". As I see, something that OVERRIDES supersedes everything else. IMHO --author shouldn't be blocked by the new option. 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. So I would not wipe "author" out from the new option. Please don't forget that I am just being a small contributor. I am just suggesting things. You have the final word and if you want we can add your small test to block it: if (force_author && renew_authorship) die("Using both --reset-author and --author does not make sense"); Documentation/git-commit.txt | 7 ++- builtin-commit.c | 9 ++- t/t7509-commit.sh | 123 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) create mode 100755 t/t7509-commit.sh diff --git a/Documentation/git-commit.txt b/Documentation/git-commit.txt index 0578a40..f89db9a 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-commit.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-commit.txt @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ SYNOPSIS -------- [verse] 'git commit' [-a | --interactive] [-s] [-v] [-u<mode>] [--amend] [--dry-run] - [(-c | -C) <commit>] [-F <file> | -m <msg>] + [(-c | -C) <commit>] [-F <file> | -m <msg>] [--reset-author] [--allow-empty] [--no-verify] [-e] [--author=<author>] [--cleanup=<mode>] [--] [[-i | -o ]<file>...] @@ -69,6 +69,11 @@ OPTIONS Like '-C', but with '-c' the editor is invoked, so that the user can further edit the commit message. +--reset-author:: + When used with -C/-c/--amend options, declare that the + authorship of the resulting commit now belongs of the committer. + This also renews the author timestamp. + -F <file>:: --file=<file>:: Take the commit message from the given file. Use '-' to diff --git a/builtin-commit.c b/builtin-commit.c index beddf01..6b51a1b 100644 --- a/builtin-commit.c +++ b/builtin-commit.c @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ static const char *template_file; static char *edit_message, *use_message; static char *author_name, *author_email, *author_date; static int all, edit_flag, also, interactive, only, amend, signoff; -static int quiet, verbose, no_verify, allow_empty, dry_run; +static int quiet, verbose, no_verify, allow_empty, dry_run, renew_authorship; static char *untracked_files_arg; /* * The default commit message cleanup mode will remove the lines @@ -91,8 +91,9 @@ static struct option builtin_commit_options[] = { OPT_FILENAME('F', "file", &logfile, "read log from file"), OPT_STRING(0, "author", &force_author, "AUTHOR", "override author for commit"), OPT_CALLBACK('m', "message", &message, "MESSAGE", "specify commit message", opt_parse_m), - OPT_STRING('c', "reedit-message", &edit_message, "COMMIT", "reuse and edit message from specified commit "), + OPT_STRING('c', "reedit-message", &edit_message, "COMMIT", "reuse and edit message from specified commit"), OPT_STRING('C', "reuse-message", &use_message, "COMMIT", "reuse message from specified commit"), + OPT_BOOLEAN(0, "reset-author", &renew_authorship, "reset timestamp and authorship to committer"), OPT_BOOLEAN('s', "signoff", &signoff, "add Signed-off-by:"), OPT_FILENAME('t', "template", &template_file, "use specified template file"), OPT_BOOLEAN('e', "edit", &edit_flag, "force edit of commit"), @@ -381,7 +382,7 @@ static void determine_author_info(void) email = getenv("GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL"); date = getenv("GIT_AUTHOR_DATE"); - if (use_message) { + if (use_message && !renew_authorship) { const char *a, *lb, *rb, *eol; a = strstr(use_message_buffer, "\nauthor "); @@ -780,6 +781,8 @@ static int parse_and_validate_options(int argc, const char *argv[], use_message = edit_message; if (amend && !use_message) use_message = "HEAD"; + if (!use_message && renew_authorship) + die("Option --reset-author is used only with -C/-c/--amend."); if (use_message) { unsigned char sha1[20]; static char utf8[] = "UTF-8"; diff --git a/t/t7509-commit.sh b/t/t7509-commit.sh new file mode 100755 index 0000000..1c27de7 --- /dev/null +++ b/t/t7509-commit.sh @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ +#!/bin/sh +# +# Copyright (c) 2009 Erick Mattos +# + +test_description='git commit + +Tests for --reset-author option on a commit.' + +. ./test-lib.sh + +TEST_FILE=foo + +author_id () { + git cat-file -p "$1" | \ + grep "^author" | \ + sed -e "s/author //" -e "s/>.*/>/" +} + +author_timestamp () { + git cat-file -p "$1" | \ + grep "^author" | \ + sed "s/.*> //" +} + +message_body () { + git cat-file commit "$1" | \ + sed -e '1,/^$/d' +} + +initiate_test () { + test_tick + echo "initial" >> "$TEST_FILE" + git add "$TEST_FILE" + git commit -m "Initial Commit" --author "Frigate <[hidden email]>" + test_tick +} + +make_files () { + author_id "$1" > "aid$2" + author_timestamp "$1" > "atime$2" + message_body "$1" > "message$2" +} + +get_committer_id () { + echo "$GIT_AUTHOR_NAME <$GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL>" > aid1 +} + +test_expect_success '-C without --reset-author uses the author from the old commit' ' + initiate_test && + echo "Test 1" >> "$TEST_FILE" && + git add "$TEST_FILE" && + git commit -C HEAD && + make_files HEAD^ 1 && + make_files HEAD 2 && + test_cmp aid1 aid2 && + test_cmp atime1 atime2 && + test_cmp message1 message2 +' + +test_expect_success '-C with --reset-author makes me the author' ' + test_tick && + echo "Test 2" >> "$TEST_FILE" && + git add "$TEST_FILE" && + git commit -C HEAD^ --reset-author && + make_files HEAD^ 1 && + make_files HEAD 2 && + get_committer_id && + test_cmp aid1 aid2 && + test_must_fail cmp atime1 atime2 && + test_cmp message1 message2 +' + +test_expect_success '-c without --reset-author uses the author from the old commit' ' + initiate_test && + echo "Test 3" >> "$TEST_FILE" && + git add "$TEST_FILE" && + EDITOR=: VISUAL=: git commit -c HEAD && + make_files HEAD^ 1 && + make_files HEAD 2 && + test_cmp aid1 aid2 && + test_cmp atime1 atime2 && + test_cmp message1 message2 +' + +test_expect_success '-c with --reset-author makes me the author' ' + test_tick && + echo "Test 4" >> "$TEST_FILE" && + git add "$TEST_FILE" && + EDITOR=: VISUAL=: git commit -c HEAD^ --reset-author && + make_files HEAD^ 1 && + make_files HEAD 2 && + get_committer_id && + test_cmp aid1 aid2 && + test_must_fail cmp atime1 atime2 && + test_cmp message1 message2 +' + +test_expect_success '--amend without --reset-author uses the author from the old commit' ' + initiate_test && + make_files HEAD 2 && + echo "Test 5" >> "$TEST_FILE" && + git add "$TEST_FILE" && + git commit -m "--amend test" --amend && + make_files HEAD 1 && + test_cmp aid1 aid2 && + test_cmp atime1 atime2 && + test_must_fail cmp message1 message2 +' + +test_expect_success '--amend with --reset-author makes me the author' ' + test_tick && + echo "Test 6" >> "$TEST_FILE" && + git add "$TEST_FILE" && + git commit -m "Changed" --amend --reset-author && + make_files HEAD 2 && + get_committer_id && + test_cmp aid1 aid2 && + test_must_fail cmp atime1 atime2 && + test_must_fail cmp message1 message2 +' + +test_done -- 1.6.5.2.144.g27f8d.dirty -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [hidden email] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html |
||||||||||||||||
Junio C Hamano
|
Erick Mattos <[hidden email]> writes:
> 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 <[hidden email]>" 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 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 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. - 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. FRIGATE='Frigate <[hidden email]>' ;# 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 This becomes irrelevant if we don't support mixing --renew and --author, of course. - message_body() now has a backslash whose sole purpose is to be an eyesore. - initiate_test() does not string the commands together with && 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. Sorry, but I cannot help feeling a bit frustrated and mildly irritated. Time to take a break and attend other topics for a change. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [hidden email] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html |
||||||||||||||||
|
Erick Mattos
|
2009/11/4 Junio C Hamano <[hidden email]>:
> Erick Mattos <[hidden email]> writes: > >> 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 <[hidden email]>" 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 <[hidden email]>' ;# 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [hidden email] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html |
||||||||||||||||
Nanako Shiraishi
|
In reply to this post
by Junio C Hamano
Quoting Junio C Hamano <[hidden email]>
> I had an impression that we have already established that setting the > author with --author="Somebody Else <[hidden email]>" and committing with the > current time does not make much sense from the workflow point of view long > time ago in this thread. > <snip> > 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. It may be wise to forbid a combination of options if it encourages mistakes or a wrong workflow, but I don't think using --author and --reset-author with 'git commit --amend' is such a case. Imagine somebody other than you (eg. me) were the maintainer, and a message by Szeder was sent with a good commit log message. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/132029 Then you sent a replacement patch that solves the same problem in a more elegant way, but without anything that is usable as the commit log message. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/132041 If I were the maintainer, I would find it very convenient if I can work like this: % git am -s 132029 --- first I apply Szeder's version Then I see your message. Replace the code change but use Szeder's log message. % git reset --hard HEAD^ % git am 132041 --- your version with no usable log message % git commit --amend -s -c @{2} --author='Junio C Hamano <...>' > Sorry, but I cannot help feeling a bit frustrated and mildly irritated. Don't try to be perfect and feel stressed out, and please take a good rest. -- Nanako Shiraishi http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [hidden email] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html |
||||||||||||||||
|
Junio C Hamano
|
Nanako Shiraishi <[hidden email]> writes:
> It may be wise to forbid a combination of options if it > encourages mistakes or a wrong workflow, but I don't think > using --author and --reset-author with 'git commit --amend' > is such a case. > > Imagine somebody other than you (eg. me) were the maintainer, > and a message by Szeder was sent with a good commit log message. > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/132029 > > Then you sent a replacement patch that solves the same problem > in a more elegant way, but without anything that is usable as the > commit log message. > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/132041 > > If I were the maintainer, I would find it very convenient if I can > work like this: > > % git am -s 132029 --- first I apply Szeder's version > > Then I see your message. Replace the code change but use Szeder's > log message. > > % git reset --hard HEAD^ > % git am 132041 --- your version with no usable log message > % git commit --amend -s -c @{2} --author='Junio C Hamano <...>' Thanks. So you commit Szeder's and then commit mine (make them independent), and amend the log message of the latter using the message from the former, and assign the authorship of the latter to the resulting commit? That is a much more understandable argument than just claiming "--author should be usable with --reset-author" without clearly stating why that would help. I think you forgot to add --reset-author to the last command line, though. But I think it is showing that --reset-author is actually suboptimal way to solve your scenario. In the last command in your sequence, you don't want to add "--reset-author --author=X" but want "--reuse-only-message" option. And I think it makes much more sense than the alternative semantics we came up with during this discussion. --mine (or --reset-author) to declare that "I am the author" was not what we wanted after all(yes, I am guilty for suggesting it). What we want is "I am using -C/-c/--amend and I want to borrow only the message part from the named commit (obviously "amend" names the HEAD commit implicitly). Determine the authorship information (including author timestamp) as if I didn't use that option." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [hidden email] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html |
||||||||||||||||
|
Erick Mattos
|
Hey, I do understand you can be very stressed. It is a huge project.
Very important for an uncountable group of people. A lot of demands and argumentation from all over. I know too that it is human nature to ask other people to agree with them completely. Much more when they are in charge. So, no problem. It was just a big surprise when I read your email. You had been so nice to me until that moment... But let's keep talking about code. I am not a big fan of human nature subjects. Although I have to be more personal for just a little. I want to show you my way of seeing things: I love defaults! A command or an option already set for the most common scenario... It's wonderful. But I like to have full control of any tool I use. If I want to do any bizarre thing nobody has ever thought about... I think I should be able to. Without any hacking. I can hammer a nail with a wrench. But I would prefer a hammer for that. I think your suggestions which changed the path of this intended function since the beginning were very good for a default. So I think --reset-author did it. Normally 95% of the time its behavior is what people will be needing. But cutting off a remote possibility for no heavy and unbearable reason imho makes features incomplete. That is why I had suggested not cutting off --author functionality when using --reset-author. I did not try to conceive all possible uses for this combination but I knew someone could find some. I have told you a simple case just to picture some figures. Nanako showed you a case you agreed. Thanks Nanako. I was not defying your judgment or showing lack of respect to you. My text after "---" was very clear about that. Thank you again Nanako for showing me the importance of this little text. About scripting abilities: I don't see a way to compare scripting "levels". Scripts are so easy that you just know or not. Different approaches could be compared. At start I really did not get the use of the "t" folder tests. I thought it was just to show functionalities. Nanako in her critics made me understand within her speach the importance of those tests. Then you clarified it much more later. So I got those informations and made another script trying to test --reset-author completely. Separating every bit of data that could show a malfunctioning. And taking also the care of letting auditing more reliable and informational. So I accepted your rough saying about "teaching" as an explosion of stress. I have to tell that our work-flow on that time was: you demanded and I made a change. The script you added was an example to me under this work-flow. I am not a kid and I have a real and busy life but I do think spending time sharing some changes I use to improve something which I value is not a lost time. As you can see by the time I had sent the emails, I was doing them overtime. So I would like to make clear that I did and do want to help as much as I can. If it is not possible to use my work then just know you and every free software coder has a big fan in me. I will be transmitting good energies to you all in any case. No hard feelings. :-) I hope you can continue doing the wonderful work you have been doing for a very long future. Best regards. 2009/11/5 Junio C Hamano <[hidden email]>: > Nanako Shiraishi <[hidden email]> writes: > >> It may be wise to forbid a combination of options if it >> encourages mistakes or a wrong workflow, but I don't think >> using --author and --reset-author with 'git commit --amend' >> is such a case. >> >> Imagine somebody other than you (eg. me) were the maintainer, >> and a message by Szeder was sent with a good commit log message. >> >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/132029 >> >> Then you sent a replacement patch that solves the same problem >> in a more elegant way, but without anything that is usable as the >> commit log message. >> >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/132041 >> >> If I were the maintainer, I would find it very convenient if I can >> work like this: >> >> % git am -s 132029 --- first I apply Szeder's version >> >> Then I see your message. Replace the code change but use Szeder's >> log message. >> >> % git reset --hard HEAD^ >> % git am 132041 --- your version with no usable log message >> % git commit --amend -s -c @{2} --author='Junio C Hamano <...>' > > Thanks. > > So you commit Szeder's and then commit mine (make them independent), and > amend the log message of the latter using the message from the former, and > assign the authorship of the latter to the resulting commit? > > That is a much more understandable argument than just claiming "--author > should be usable with --reset-author" without clearly stating why that > would help. I think you forgot to add --reset-author to the last command > line, though. > > But I think it is showing that --reset-author is actually suboptimal way > to solve your scenario. In the last command in your sequence, you don't > want to add "--reset-author --author=X" but want "--reuse-only-message" > option. > > And I think it makes much more sense than the alternative semantics we > came up with during this discussion. --mine (or --reset-author) to > declare that "I am the author" was not what we wanted after all(yes, I am > guilty for suggesting it). What we want is "I am using -C/-c/--amend and > I want to borrow only the message part from the named commit (obviously > "amend" names the HEAD commit implicitly). Determine the authorship > information (including author timestamp) as if I didn't use that option." > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [hidden email] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html |
||||||||||||||||
| Free Embeddable Forum Powered by Nabble | Help |
