[bug#28020] [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.

[bug#28020] [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.

[Oleg Pykhalov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 415 bytes --]

By the way, “gitpatch.el” says different version than release tarball.
Do I need to ask a developer?
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
;; Author: Feng Shu <tumashu@163.com>
;; Homepage: https://github.com/tumashu/gitpatch
;; Keywords: convenience
;; Package-Requires: ((emacs "24.3"))
;; Version: 0.10
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch. --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1600 bytes --]

From 9eddf07fa401468738c2f48a25e51ddef2a3ceed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 14:22:48 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.

* gnu/packages/emacs.scm (emacs-gitpatch): New variable.
---
 gnu/packages/emacs.scm | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/emacs.scm b/gnu/packages/emacs.scm
index 917c511f3..37a4129a1 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/emacs.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/emacs.scm
@@ -5231,3 +5231,25 @@ multiplexer.")
     (description "@code{emacs-rpm-spec-mode} provides an Emacs major mode for
 editing RPM spec files.")
     (license license:gpl2+)))
+
+(define-public emacs-gitpatch
+  (package
+    (name "emacs-gitpatch")
+    (version "0.5.0")
+    (source (origin
+              (method url-fetch)
+              (uri (string-append "https://github.com/tumashu/gitpatch/archive/"
+                                  "v" version ".tar.gz"))
+              (file-name (string-append name "-" version ".tar.gz"))
+              (sha256
+               (base32
+                "1yj6pmic541lcnscjin300k380qp9xdfprs55xg1q57jrkq6f6k7"))))
+    (build-system emacs-build-system)
+    (home-page "https://github.com/tumashu/gitpatch")
+    (synopsis "Send git-format patch from Emacs")
+    (description "@code{emacs-gitpatch} is git-format patch toolkit, which let
+user easy handle git-format patch without exit Emacs.
+
+@code{M-x gitpatch-mail} can send a git-format patch file from @code{magit},
+@code{dired}, @code{ibuffer} buffers.")
+    (license license:gpl2+)))
-- 
2.14.0

bug#28020: [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.

[Arun Isaac]

Thanks for the patch! I have pushed it with changes to the synopsis and
description.

Oleg Pykhalov writes:

> By the way, “gitpatch.el” says different version than release tarball.
> Do I need to ask a developer?
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> ;; Author: Feng Shu <tumashu@163.com>
> ;; Homepage: https://github.com/tumashu/gitpatch
> ;; Keywords: convenience
> ;; Package-Requires: ((emacs "24.3"))
> ;; Version: 0.10
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Yes, please report this problem upstream. I have also CCed the author in
this thread. The author happens to contribute to Guix as well. :-)

[bug#28020] [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.

[ng0]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2162 bytes --]

Arun Isaac transcribed 0.7K bytes:
> 
> Thanks for the patch! I have pushed it with changes to the synopsis and
> description.
> 
> Oleg Pykhalov writes:
> 
> > By the way, “gitpatch.el” says different version than release tarball.
> > Do I need to ask a developer?
> > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> > ;; Author: Feng Shu <tumashu@163.com>
> > ;; Homepage: https://github.com/tumashu/gitpatch
> > ;; Keywords: convenience
> > ;; Package-Requires: ((emacs "24.3"))
> > ;; Version: 0.10
> > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> 
> Yes, please report this problem upstream. I have also CCed the author in
> this thread. The author happens to contribute to Guix as well. :-)
> 
> 
> 
> 


commit 1ee879e96705e6381c056358b7f426f2cf99c1df
Author: Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue Aug 8 21:02:32 2017 +0300

    gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.

    By the way, “gitpatch.el” says different version than release tarball.
    Do I need to ask a developer?
    --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
    ;; Author: Feng Shu <tumashu@163.com>
    ;; Homepage: https://github.com/tumashu/gitpatch
    ;; Keywords: convenience
    ;; Package-Requires: ((emacs "24.3"))
    ;; Version: 0.10
    --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

    >From 9eddf07fa401468738c2f48a25e51ddef2a3ceed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
    From: Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust@gmail.com>
    Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 14:22:48 +0300
    Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.

    * gnu/packages/emacs.scm (emacs-gitpatch): New variable.

    Signed-off-by: Arun Isaac <arunisaac@systemreboot.net>

I appreciate the concerns, but
I don't think the complete paragraph of "By the way…" should be in the
commit message. Please place notes like this as "XXX: ..." or "TODO: ..."
in the code if possible.
Or is there any reason why this landed in the commit message?
-- 
ng0
GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588
GnuPG: https://n0is.noblogs.org/my-keys
https://www.infotropique.org https://krosos.org

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[bug#28020] [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.

[Arun Isaac]

ng0 writes:

>     gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.
>
>     By the way, “gitpatch.el” says different version than release tarball.
>     Do I need to ask a developer?
>     --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>     ;; Author: Feng Shu <tumashu@163.com>
>     ;; Homepage: https://github.com/tumashu/gitpatch
>     ;; Keywords: convenience
>     ;; Package-Requires: ((emacs "24.3"))
>     ;; Version: 0.10
>     --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
>     >From 9eddf07fa401468738c2f48a25e51ddef2a3ceed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>     From: Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust@gmail.com>
>     Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 14:22:48 +0300
>     Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.
>
>     * gnu/packages/emacs.scm (emacs-gitpatch): New variable.
>
>     Signed-off-by: Arun Isaac <arunisaac@systemreboot.net>
>
> I appreciate the concerns, but
> I don't think the complete paragraph of "By the way…" should be in the
> commit message. Please place notes like this as "XXX: ..." or "TODO: ..."
> in the code if possible.
> Or is there any reason why this landed in the commit message?

Oops! I didn't notice it was there. Looks like I screwed up big time
while applying the patch. There's no way to change the commit message
now, is there?

[bug#28020] [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

Arun,

Arun Isaac wrote on 10/08/17 at 18:26:> Oops! I didn't notice it was
there. Looks like I screwed up big time
> while applying the patch. There's no way to change the commit message
> now, is there?

Nope :-)

Kind regards,

T G-R

[bug#28020] [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.

[Arun Isaac]

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice writes:

> Arun,
>
> Arun Isaac wrote on 10/08/17 at 18:26:> Oops! I didn't notice it was
> there. Looks like I screwed up big time
>> while applying the patch. There's no way to change the commit message
>> now, is there?
>
> Nope :-)

:-( Terribly sorry about this! I have scarred the guix git repo
forever...! :-(

[bug#28020] [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.

[ng0]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1731 bytes --]

Arun Isaac transcribed 1.3K bytes:
> 
> ng0 writes:
> 
> >     gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.
> >
> >     By the way, “gitpatch.el” says different version than release tarball.
> >     Do I need to ask a developer?
> >     --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> >     ;; Author: Feng Shu <tumashu@163.com>
> >     ;; Homepage: https://github.com/tumashu/gitpatch
> >     ;; Keywords: convenience
> >     ;; Package-Requires: ((emacs "24.3"))
> >     ;; Version: 0.10
> >     --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> >
> >     >From 9eddf07fa401468738c2f48a25e51ddef2a3ceed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >     From: Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust@gmail.com>
> >     Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 14:22:48 +0300
> >     Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.
> >
> >     * gnu/packages/emacs.scm (emacs-gitpatch): New variable.
> >
> >     Signed-off-by: Arun Isaac <arunisaac@systemreboot.net>
> >
> > I appreciate the concerns, but
> > I don't think the complete paragraph of "By the way…" should be in the
> > commit message. Please place notes like this as "XXX: ..." or "TODO: ..."
> > in the code if possible.
> > Or is there any reason why this landed in the commit message?
> 
> Oops! I didn't notice it was there. Looks like I screwed up big time
> while applying the patch. There's no way to change the commit message
> now, is there?
> 

No, don't worry there are some other misshapenings in the commit log.
Mistakes can happen. Though it would be nice to have a checker for this
somehow...
-- 
ng0
GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588
GnuPG: https://n0is.noblogs.org/my-keys
https://www.infotropique.org https://krosos.org

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[bug#28020] [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.

[Arun Isaac]

> it would be nice to have a checker for this somehow...

Yes, something like `guix lint', but for commits. It should become a git
hook much like etc/git/pre-push.

I'll write this checker script. I could write one specifically looking
for the kind of mistake I made -- the problem with part of the email
thread coming into the commit message. But, I think it will be better to
have a more general checker. Any suggestions to get started?  What are
the other kind of mistakes that have happened in the commit log?

Also, having a staging branch to which all commits are made would help
keep the master branch clean, and free of these mishaps. But, I guess
this issue has been raised before, and the creation of such a staging
branch has been postponed.

[bug#28020] [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

Arun,

Arun Isaac wrote on 10/08/17 at 19:31:
> Also, having a staging branch to which all commits are made would help
> keep the master branch clean, and free of these mishaps. But, I guess
> this issue has been raised before, and the creation of such a staging
> branch has been postponed.

Interesting. Do you have a link? We do have a ‘staging’ branch, but it
serves a different purpose (basically, ‘core-updates’, lite).

Since the commit message is already reviewed on the mailing list, such a
branch would only catch the — one hopes — very rare last-minute foul-up
by the committer themselves.

‘Someone’ would have to keep track of, review, and merge it. ‘People’
would then start following that branch instead of master (Why let a typo
keep me from the shiny?), making rebasing just as painful.

I'm less opposed to an optional hook, but fear that it will discourage
committers from making a habit of checking all their commits before that
last and final push. Which they should definitely be doing.

(That's not a dig at you or anyone personally — you're talking to the
reason for the /current/ pre-push hook, after all :-)

Kind regards,

T G-R

[bug#28020] [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.

[Arun Isaac]

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice writes:

>> Also, having a staging branch to which all commits are made would help
>> keep the master branch clean, and free of these mishaps. But, I guess
>> this issue has been raised before, and the creation of such a staging
>> branch has been postponed.
>
> Interesting. Do you have a link? We do have a ‘staging’ branch, but it
> serves a different purpose (basically, ‘core-updates’, lite).

I was referring to this thread discussing the stability of master. It's
not about any staging branch like I proposed, but there are some
similarities.

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-07/msg00021.html

> Since the commit message is already reviewed on the mailing list, such a
> branch would only catch the — one hopes — very rare last-minute foul-up
> by the committer themselves.
>
> ‘Someone’ would have to keep track of, review, and merge it. ‘People’
> would then start following that branch instead of master (Why let a typo
> keep me from the shiny?), making rebasing just as painful.

Agreed.

> I'm less opposed to an optional hook, but fear that it will discourage
> committers from making a habit of checking all their commits before that
> last and final push. Which they should definitely be doing.

Despite these concerns, I think it is still worth automating some commit
checks. Given long enough time, even the most careful person is likely
to mess up somewhere.

> (That's not a dig at you or anyone personally — you're talking to the
> reason for the /current/ pre-push hook, after all :-)

No issues! :-)

continued discussion on git commit messages

[ng0]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2348 bytes --]

It makes more sense to move this to guix-devel, the bug is finished.

Arun Isaac transcribed 1.6K bytes:
> 
> Tobias Geerinckx-Rice writes:
> 
> >> Also, having a staging branch to which all commits are made would help
> >> keep the master branch clean, and free of these mishaps. But, I guess
> >> this issue has been raised before, and the creation of such a staging
> >> branch has been postponed.
> >
> > Interesting. Do you have a link? We do have a ‘staging’ branch, but it
> > serves a different purpose (basically, ‘core-updates’, lite).
> 
> I was referring to this thread discussing the stability of master. It's
> not about any staging branch like I proposed, but there are some
> similarities.
> 
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-07/msg00021.html
> 
> > Since the commit message is already reviewed on the mailing list, such a
> > branch would only catch the — one hopes — very rare last-minute foul-up
> > by the committer themselves.
> >
> > ‘Someone’ would have to keep track of, review, and merge it. ‘People’
> > would then start following that branch instead of master (Why let a typo
> > keep me from the shiny?), making rebasing just as painful.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > I'm less opposed to an optional hook, but fear that it will discourage
> > committers from making a habit of checking all their commits before that
> > last and final push. Which they should definitely be doing.
> 
> Despite these concerns, I think it is still worth automating some commit
> checks. Given long enough time, even the most careful person is likely
> to mess up somewhere.

That's what I (although very obscure) meant to express with my grumpy
comments a while back. We could have a bot merging this after checks have
been run (mostly what I was concerned with is health of repository and
general build checks). Ludovic said we'd need to change large parts of our
workflow for this, and someone needs to work on getting this implemented.

> > (That's not a dig at you or anyone personally — you're talking to the
> > reason for the /current/ pre-push hook, after all :-)
> 
> No issues! :-)
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
ng0
GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588
GnuPG: https://n0is.noblogs.org/my-keys
https://www.infotropique.org https://krosos.org

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[bug#28020] [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch.

[ng0]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1054 bytes --]

Arun Isaac transcribed 0.7K bytes:
> 
> > it would be nice to have a checker for this somehow...
> 
> Yes, something like `guix lint', but for commits. It should become a git
> hook much like etc/git/pre-push.
> 
> I'll write this checker script. I could write one specifically looking
> for the kind of mistake I made -- the problem with part of the email
> thread coming into the commit message. But, I think it will be better to
> have a more general checker. Any suggestions to get started?  What are
> the other kind of mistakes that have happened in the commit log?

The other one I remember right now is debbugs leaking into the subject
if you are not careful. Happened at least once, search for "bug#" in the
log. It's a rare unfixed thing, take a look at
d54db52e7fe469612386ec15d4bf7650e9225a92 and how it came to be. Someone
else complained about this happening with debbugs.
-- 
ng0
GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588
GnuPG: https://n0is.noblogs.org/my-keys
https://www.infotropique.org https://krosos.org

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]