Am I understanding this correctly that the difference between “commentary” and the description
of a patch is that the latter is something that pijul
cares about, whereas the former just gets ignored outright?
It’s unlikely we’re changing the format at this point, I believe it is email-friendly though.
While I do like the patch format, I think it has some things (really one that I can think of at this time) that wouldn’t be very conducive for email-exchanged patches (e.g. the workflow that would be used on a prospective
pj.sr.ht
).My main concern is really the fact that there is no place to put “commentary” (as it’s commonly referred to when using
git
) – stuff that isn’t suitable for the change’s description, but e.g. to communicate what has changed since the last version. For those unfamiliar (I’d imagine that’s not many, but just to be safe), you can put such commentary below a marker line,---
, after which the diff’s contents follow.An idea to resolve this (or, at the very least, resolve my above concern) would be for the ability to have commentary precede the patch’s contents. Something like the following:
For this to work as expected, it should be possible to
pijul apply < file.pijul
, with the above contents, andpijul
should know to ignore everything before the---
.