On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:10:42AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes: > > > So as a discussion starter: > > * Should git am skip a patch 00/XX automatically ? > > No. My preference is to add "--initial-skip=<N>", though. > > When I receive a patch series to reroll another series, I somehow > know and verify that earlier N patches have not changed, I detach > the HEAD at the last unchanged commit from the previous round and > apply the remainder of the new series, so that I can preserve the > author timestamps of earlier steps from the previous series. By > the time I "know and verify" where the first step that was updated, > I have a full series in a single mbox; having "--initial-skip=<N>" > would help with that use case, too, and "skipping the first" is a > narrow special case of giving N=1.
For my workflow, it is not about "initial skip", but rather just "skip emails that don't have patches in them at all". My MUA makes it easy to tag a whole thread (or subthread), cover letter and discussion included, and then dump it all to git-am. And I think that would be the same for a public-inbox workflow (if it learns to grab sub-threads; otherwise you end up with earlier iterations of the series attached to the same thread). That is solving a different problem than you, though, where you want to skip actual patches because you know they are unchanged. -Peff -- unsubscribe: meta+unsubscr...@public-inbox.org archive: https://public-inbox.org/meta/
