On 06/10/19 11:49AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Pratyush, > > On Sun, 6 Oct 2019, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > > > On 06/10/19 01:46AM, Harish Karumuthil wrote: > > > > > > From https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/email-clients.html, I > > > understood that, my current email client ( that is gmail web ) is not good > > > for submitting patches. So I was tying to setup a mail client which is > > > compatible with `git send-mail`. But I was not able to get a satisfactory > > > result in that. > > > > You don't need to "set up" an email client with git-send-email. > > git-send-email is an email client itself. Well, one which can only send > > emails. > > It also cannot reply to mails on the mailing list. > > It cannot even notify you when anybody replied to your patch. > > Two rather problematic aspects when it comes to patch contributions: how > are you supposed to work with the reviewers when you lack all the tools > to _interact_ with them? All `git send-email` provides is a "fire and > forget" way to send patches, i.e. it encourages a monologue, when you > want to start a dialogue instead.
Well, I started with email based patch contribution when I was first got started with open source, so I might be a bit biased, but in my experience, it is not that difficult to set all these things up. Most of the time, all you need to tell git-send-email is your SMTP server, username, and password. All pretty easy things to do. And you add in your email client (which pretty much everyone should have), and it is a complete setup. I personally use neomutt as my email client, but I have used Thunderbird before, and it is really easy to set it up to send plain text emails. All you need to do is hold Shift before hitting reply, and you're in plain text mode. And you can even make it use plain text by default by flipping a switch in the settings. So while I agree with you that there is certainly a learning curve involved, I don't think it is all too bad. But again, that is all my personal opinion, and nothing based on facts or data. > > So what you should do is run `git format-patch -o feature master..HEAD`, > > assuming your feature branch is checked out. This will give you a set of > > '.patch' files depending on how many commits you made in your branch in > > the folder feature/. Then, you can run > > > > git send-email --to='Pratyush Yadav <m...@yadavpratyush.com>' > > --cc='<git@vger.kernel.org>' feature/*.patch > > > > This will send all your patch files via email to me with the git list in > > Cc. You can add multiple '--to' and '--cc' options to send it to > > multiple people. > > > > Try sending the patches to yourself to experiment around with it. > > > > A pretty good tutorial to configuring and using git-send-email can be > > found at [0]. And of course, read the man page. > > > > These instructions are for Linux, but you can probably do something > > similar in Windows too (if you're using Windows that is). > > Last I checked, `git send-email` worked in Git for Windows. > > But of course, it does not only not address the problem it tries to > solve fully (to provide a way to interact with a mailing list when > submitting patches for review), not even close, to add insult to injury, > it now adds an additional burden to contributors (who might already have > struggled to learn themselves enough Tcl/Tk to fix the problem) to > configure `git send-email` correctly. The way I see it, git-send-email does not need to solve the problem of interacting with a mailing list. That problem is already solved by a hoard of MUAs. All git-send-email should do is, you guessed it, send emails (or patches to be specific). Anyway, GitGitGadget solves a large part of the problem. It eliminates the need for using git-send-email, and it even shows you the replies received on the list. I honestly think it is a great tool, and it gives people a very good alternative to using git-send-email. One feature that would make it complete would be the ability to reply to review comments. This would remove the need for an email client (almost) completely. I have never written Typescript or used Azure pipelines ever, but I can try tinkering around to see if I can figure out how to do something like that. Unless, of course, you or someone else is already doing it. If not, some pointers would be appreciated. > > > For now, I followed the instruction of Johannes Schindelin and submitted a > > > pull request . Please see https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/376 > > > > You haven't sent '/submit' over there, so those emails aren't in the > > list (and my inbox) yet. You need to comment with '/submit' (without the > > quotes) to tell GitGitGadget to send your PR as email. > > They probably did not hit `/submit` because the initial hurdle is to be > `/allow`ed (a very, very simplistic attempt at trying to prevent > spamming the mailing list by jokesters, of which there are unfortunately > quite a number). > > This `/allow` command, BTW, can be issued by anybody who has been > `/allow`ed before, it does not always have to be me. > > FWIW you should probably be in that list of `/allow`ed people so that > you can `/allow` new contributors to use GitGitGadget, too. That would be great! How do I get '/allow'ed? Do I have to open a PR there for you to '/allow' me? > > [...] > > > > > Since #1 is a serious issue, I tried to find out the function which does > > > the > > > keycode validation, but I haven't succeded till now. ( I found the C > > > function > > > name which is "TkStringToKeysym" from TK source, but I couldn't find its > > > TCL > > > binding ). It will be helpful if any one can help me on this. > > > > I really think you shouldn't dive around in the C parts of Tcl. I > > haven't looked too deeply into this, but you can probably wrap your bind > > calls in `catch` [2] and handle errors from there. Again, I haven't > > tried actually doing this, so you do need to check first. > > > > You can find examples of how to use `catch` in our codebase. Just search > > for it. > > FWIW in addition to the `catch` method, I would also recommend looking > into a minimal (not even necessarily complete) way to translate the Qt > way to specify the keyboard shortcuts (as used by `git-cola`) to Tk > ones. > > As indicated in > https://github.com/git/git/pull/220#issuecomment-536045075, the Qt style > `CTRL+,` should be translated to `Control-comma`, for example. In > particular, keystrokes specified in the format indicated at > https://doc.qt.io/archives/qt-4.8/qkeysequence.html#QKeySequence-2 to > the format indicated at https://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl8.4/TkCmd/keysyms.htm. > > However, it might not even need to put in _such_ a lot of work: in my > tests, `Control-,` worked just as well as `Control-comma`. To test this > for yourself, use this snippet (that is slightly modified from the > example at the bottom of https://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl/TkCmd/bind.htm so > that it reacts _only_ to Control+comma instead of all keys): Another benefit to the translation framework would be that we could also generate the menu labels (aka "accelerator") for the tools, instead of making the user specify both the shortcut and the label. > -- snip -- > set keysym "Press any key" > pack [label .l -textvariable keysym -padx 2m -pady 1m] > #bind . <Key> { > bind . <Control-,> { > set keysym "You pressed %K" > } > -- snap -- > > So I could imagine that something like this could serve as an initial > draft for a function that you can turn into a "good enough" version: > > -- snip -- > proc QKeySequence2keysym {keystroke} { > regsub -all {(?i)Ctrl\+} $keystroke "Control-" keystroke > regsub -all {(?i)Alt\+} $keystroke "Alt-" keystroke > regsub -all {(?i)Shift\+} $keystroke "Shift-" keystroke > return $keystroke > } > -- snap -- > > That way, you don't have to introduce settings separate from > `git-cola`'s, and you can reuse the short-and-sweet variable name. I think a more important question is whether we _really_ need to have compatibility with git-cola. Most of our shortcuts don't match with them, so is it really worth the effort to try to keep compatibility? I'm not against something like this, but just want to be sure we evaluate whether the effort is worth it. -- Regards, Pratyush Yadav
