On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 13:22 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I think the "validation" done with the rest_is_empty() is somewhat
> bogus. Why should we reject a commit without a message and a
> trailer block with only signed-off-by lines, while accepting a
> commit without a message and a trailer block as long as the trailer
> block has something equally meaningless by itself, like
> "Helped-by:"? I think we should inspect the proposed commit log
> message taken from the editor, find its tail ignoring the trailing
> comment using ignore_non_trailer, and further separate the result
> into (<message>, <trailers>, <junk at the tail>) using the same
> logic used by the interpret-trailers tool, and then complain when
> <message> turns out to be empty, to be truly useful and consistent.
>
I have a few doubts for which I need clarification to move on with
this.
1. If we abort when the <message> part is empty wouldn't it be too
restrictive ?
IOW, Wouldn't it affect users of "git commit --cleanup=verbatim"
who wish to commit only the comments or parts of it ?
(I'm not sure if someone would find that useful)
2. Is it ok to use the "find_trailer_start" function of "trailer.c"
to locate the trailer?
Note: It has a little issue that it wouldn't detect the trailer if
the message comprises of one trailer alone and no other text. This
case occurs while aborting a commit started using "git commit -s".
Any possibilities to overcome the issue?
3. Ignoring point 1 for now, What other helper methods except the
ones listed below could be helpful in the separating the cleaned up
commit message into the <message>, <trailer>, <junk-at-tail> ?
* ignore_non_trailer
* find_trailer_start
--
Kaartic
