patch: Comment on patch is shown as comment on revision
In heartwood, I commented on patch 8487370caba29949e561f8ad62ee4f086675abc6 using
$ rad patch comment 8487370caba29949e561f8ad62ee4f086675abc6
This resulted in comment d1d316c717742344f22609458a056a29db631ab4
This is rendered by the CLI as follows:
$ rad patch show --verbose 84873
╭──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮
│ Title Refactor signing and public key usage │
│ Patch 8487370caba29949e561f8ad62ee4f086675abc6 │
│ Author fintohaps z6Mkire…SQZ3voM │
│ Head bf6c0da0787df5851f3272374a6ac735f4f241d4 │
│ Base d9c76893a144fd787654613f2bfb919613014a71 │
│ Commits ahead 2, behind 59 │
│ Status open │
│ │
│ This patch aims to refactor some of our usage of `PublicKey` and `Signer`. The │
│ │
│ motivation for this is to help make way for thinking about agent repositories – │
│ and, in the future, multi-device. │
│ │
│ The main motivation is to help gain some separation when we want to think about │
│ a node (or device) signing artifacts, and when will want to think about an agent │
│ signing artifacts. │
│ │
│ The reason for moving away from `radicle_crypto::Signer` and towards │
│ `signature::Signer` is because the former ties itself very closely to the │
│ `PublicKey`. In the future, we will want signers that are not necessarily a │
│ single `PublicKey` – but may come from many device, for example. │
│ │
│ However, there are places where we do want this association, and that is why the │
│ `Device` type is introduced. │
│ │
│ Furthermore, we also want to try help separate when a `PublicKey` is required │
│ for verifying and when it used for namespacing in the Git repository. For now, │
│ this separation is only done by abstracting away the namespacing for the COB │
│ storage. │
│ │
│ See the commits for more details on the changes. │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ bf6c0da cob: abstract namespace identifier │
│ 9cb2cf0 radicle: move to `signature` crate │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ ● opened by fintohaps z6Mkire…SQZ3voM (bf6c0da) 4 months ago │
│ └─ ⋄ reviewed by erikli z6MkgFq…FGAnBGz 1 day ago │
│ * revised by self (you) in 0215f0f (6f8f3a9) 36 minutes ago │
│ * revised by self (you) in 7d12ed5 (40960f4) 16 minutes ago │
│ * revised by self (you) in 7a59377 (10de6a7) 10 minutes ago │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ self (you) 5 minutes ago d1d316c │
│ I rebased this and worked in Erik's feedback. To get the │
│ correct range-diffs: │
│ │
│ Rebase: │
│ │
│ git range-diff d9c76893a144fd787654613f2bfb919613014a71… │
│ │
│ Erik's feedback │
│ │
│ git range-diff f30760d6bb86d2978a5ed4df8ee45b9aa97778b4… │
╰──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯
It appears to me that I have commented on the issue (as a whole) and this was my intention.
However, in Radicle Desktop, this comment appears in the “Discussion” section of the initial revision.
This is confusing. I know that the reason probably is the overloading of the identity of the patch and of its first revision. However, in addition this presents an inconsistency between CLI and Desktop.