From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourcehut@relevant-information.com>
Received: from mp10.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:4ea1::])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	by ms12 with LMTPS
	id iC5uIapUzGGVDgAAsNZ9tg
	(envelope-from <sourcehut@relevant-information.com>)
	for <larch@inbox.kyleam.com>; Wed, 29 Dec 2021 12:29:30 +0000
Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	by mp10.migadu.com with LMTPS
	id CJJlHqpUzGFiSgEAG6o9tA
	(envelope-from <sourcehut@relevant-information.com>)
	for <larch@inbox.kyleam.com>; Wed, 29 Dec 2021 13:29:30 +0100
Received: from mout-p-101.mailbox.org (mout-p-101.mailbox.org [80.241.56.151])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
	(No client certificate requested)
	by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 552F92BE5B
	for <piem@inbox.kyleam.com>; Wed, 29 Dec 2021 13:29:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smtp202.mailbox.org (smtp202.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:105:465:1:4:0])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256)
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mout-p-101.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4JP9h91nd6zQjVK;
	Wed, 29 Dec 2021 13:29:29 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at heinlein-support.de
From: Leo <sourcehut@relevant-information.com>
To: Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com>, piem@inbox.kyleam.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] piem-edit-patch-am: Relay piem-am-ready-mbox's format
In-Reply-To: <20211228170417.216825-1-kyle@kyleam.com>
References: <20211228170417.216825-1-kyle@kyleam.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2021 13:28:43 +0100
Message-ID: <871r1vmw78.fsf@hako.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com;
	none
X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com
X-TUID: 4wJY27GE9ju9

I was sure that I changed it from using the hard coded value -.-

Anyways this looks good to me.  There was no specific reason for me to
use "mbox" instead of the buffer-local variable.

Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> writes:

> piem-edit stores the format returned by piem-am-ready-mbox in a
> buffer-local variable, piem-edit-patch--format.  However,
> piem-edit-patch-am doesn't use this value when it calls piem-am,
> instead passing a hard-coded "mbox".
>
> Pass piem-edit-patch--format so that git-am is called with the
> appropriate format.
>
> Cc: Leo <sourcehut@relevant-information.com>
> ---
>  piem.el | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/piem.el b/piem.el
> index b06719b2..b839942e 100644
> --- a/piem.el
> +++ b/piem.el
> @@ -1006,7 +1006,7 @@ (defun piem-edit-patch-am ()
>    (interactive)
>    (let ((buf (current-buffer)))
>      (piem-am buf
> -             "mbox"
> +             piem-edit-patch--format
>               (piem-extract-mbox-info (current-buffer))
>               piem-edit-patch--coderepo)
>      (kill-buffer buf)))
>
> base-commit: 2b08667d9165da5381e6044b1ffa0bea90241110
> -- 
> 2.34.0