Using the From: address specified in the body

[Guilherme Salgado]

On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 09:23 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em 17-03-2011 19:20, Peter Maydell escreveu:
> > On 17 March 2011 23:06, Guilherme Salgado <guilherme.salgado at linaro.org> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 13:50 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >>> Em 16-03-2011 11:03, Guilherme Salgado escreveu:
> >>>> I see that some emails with patches have a From: field in the body[1],
> >>>> and I'm wondering if there's any reason for not using that (when
> >>>> available, of course) as the patch submitter.  Well, now that I think of
> >>>> it, one could argue that the submitter is whoever sent the email, but
> >>>> maybe it would be useful to have a 'author' field on Patch so that we
> >>>> can properly represent cases where submitter != author?
> > 
> >>> For example, I've seem a few patches that have email references. It would
> >>> not be impossible to see a "From: " or "Author: " in the middle of such
> >>> references.
> >>
> >> That's a good point, but I think we could avoid that if we were
> >> conservative and just used a 'From:' when it's at the beginning of a
> >> line and that line is before the beginning of the diff.
> 
> Being at the beginning of a line is not enough. Patches that are forwarded
> in general follows rule of having the From: as the first line of the
> email body.

Ok, the more restrictive rule we can use the better. :)

> 
> > Guilherme: presumably Linaro will want to make a distinction
> > between "Linaro wrote this" and "a Linaro person is doing
> > upstream submaintainer type work with othre peoples' contributions"
> > in our patch counting metrics? (if so, there's your test case :-))
> > 
> > For completeness, should we support the git am "Subject: can
> > be at the start of the body" syntax too?
> 
> I think that, if such support is added on patchwork (both from: and subject:
> replacements), the better would be to output them as a patchwork-specific
> meta-data at the emails, like:

We should store them in the DB in a structured fashion, but once we have
that it's trivial to include it in the mbox file that patchwork provides
for every patch, which i think is what you want?

> 
> patchwork_subject:
> patchwork_from:
> 
> This allow people that use some sort of script (like me) to decide how
> they want to handle it.


-- 
Guilherme Salgado <https://launchpad.net/~salgado>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/patchwork/attachments/20110318/0668c4d7/attachment.pgp>