Hi Junio,
On Sat, 7 Jul 2018, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
> >
> > >> Does the "gitgitgadget" thing lie on the Date: e-mail header?
> > >
> > > No, GitGitGadget takes the literal output from `git format-patch`, as far
> > > as I can tell. So if at all, it is `format-patch` that is lying.
> >
> > format-patch faithfully records the fact about the commit that is
> > made into the patch. How pieces of information should (or should
> > not) be used depends on the purpose of the application that uses
> > its output.
>
> I guess this is one of the fallouts for abusing the `format-patch|am`
> dance for `rebase--am`.
Speaking of GitGitGadget: I just encoutered a problem with your
`refs/notes/amlog` and I hope you can help me with that.
Concretely, I want GitGitGadget to be able to identify the commit that
corresponds to a given mail that contained a patch (if it ever made it
into `pu`), to automate all kinds of tedious things that I currently have
to perform manually.
And here I hit a block: I am looking for the commit corresponding to
aca087479b35cbcbd7c84c7ca3bcf556133d0548.1530274571.git.gitgitgad...@gmail.com
When I ask `git notes --ref=refs/notes/gitster-amlog show
4cec3986f017d84c8d6a2c4233d2eba4a3ffa60d` (the SHA-1 is the one
corresponding to `Message-Id: <...>` for that mail), it insists on
outputting
5902152ab02291af4454f24a8ccaf2adddefc306
However, I cannot find that commit anywhere.
When I look for the commit in the same manual, tedious way that I want to
automate, I find that it *is* in `pu`, but as
5cf8e064747be2026bb23be37f84f2f0b2a31781
Even curiouser: when I now ask for the commit notes for both of those
SHA-1s, I get back the correct, same Message-Id *for both of them*, which
makes me think that it was recorded correctly, but then overwritten due to
some process I don't understand.
Would you be able to shed light into this?
Thank you,
Dscho
