[git-buildpackage] Deprecating Gbp-Pq-Topic

[Guido Günther]

Hi,
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:10:35AM +0200, Markus Lehtonen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 16:06 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 12:27:48PM +0200, Markus Lehtonen wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 10:41 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> > > > Hi Markus,
> > > > I noticed that entries like
> > > > 
> > > >   Gbp-Pq: Topic <topic>
> > > > 
> > > > don't get filtered out of the resulting patch file while
> > > > 
> > > >   Gbp-Pq-Topic: <topic>
> > > > 
> > > > gets filtered out so the result of
> > > > 
> > > >   gbp pq export
> > > > 
> > > > is different depending on wether "Gbp-Pq-Topic:" or "Gbp-Pq: Topic"
> > > > got used. Is this intentinal? Both commands should produce the same
> > > > results. The current parser doesn't seem cappable of removing commands
> > > > from the commit message.
> > > 
> > > I guess I just didn't think about that aspect when writing the patch.
> > > The filtering would need to be added to the command (meta-tag) parsing
> > > function. I put that in my backlog so I hopefully have that in my next
> > > update.
> > 
> > Thought so, just wanted to double check if this was intentional, I
> > missed that during my review too. So
> > 
> >   def parse_gbp_commands(info, cmd_tag, noarg_cmds, arg_cmds):
> >   ...
> >   return commands
> > 
> > would become
> > 
> >   def parse_gbp_commands(info, cmd_tag, noarg_cmds, arg_cmds, filter_cmds):
> >   ...
> >   return (commands, filered_info)
> > 
> > o.k.?
> 
> Yes, looks good! I had about the same in mind.
> 
> 
> > In that case I might look into it later this week to get that
> > merged soonish (I'd like to do one release that do several
> > deprecations at once).
> 
> OK, you're probably faster than with this, then.

Pushed now as 62a5429093ab190a843d5fa7243227c1d799ca3e.

Cheers,
 -- Guido