{"thread":{"id":"10421","subject":"[PATCH] git-format-patch: Don't number patches when there's only one","startedAt":"2007-10-21T08:13:07Z","lastAt":"2007-11-04T09:49:23Z","messageCount":14,"participants":["Andreas Ericsson","Johannes Schindelin","Mike Hommey","Samuel Tardieu"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"56835","messageId":"20071021144637.762085BB92@nox.op5.se","threadId":"10421","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[PATCH] git-format-patch: Don't number patches when there's only one","fromName":"Andreas Ericsson","fromEmail":"ae@op5.se","sentAt":"2007-10-21T08:13:07Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-21T08:13:07Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"ae@op5.se","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/426e89595c75a8f5252dd0c989e5fabe5bcac616e68557427ad9aef6b0ca342a?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"[PATCH 1/1] looks a bit silly, and automagically handling\nthis in git-format-patch makes some scripting around it a\nlot more pleasant.\n\nSigned-off-by: Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>\n---\n Documentation/git-format-patch.txt |    3 ++-\n builtin-log.c                      |    4 ++++\n 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt b/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt\nindex c9857a2..9f16951 100644\n--- a/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt\n@@ -56,7 +56,8 @@ If -o is specified, output files are created in <dir>.  Otherwise\n they are created in the current working directory.\n \n If -n is specified, instead of \"[PATCH] Subject\", the first line\n-is formatted as \"[PATCH n/m] Subject\".\n+is formatted as \"[PATCH n/m] Subject\" if the revision range to\n+format contains more than one commit.\n \n If given --thread, git-format-patch will generate In-Reply-To and\n References headers to make the second and subsequent patch mails appear\ndiff --git a/builtin-log.c b/builtin-log.c\nindex e8b982d..5c48f4d 100644\n--- a/builtin-log.c\n+++ b/builtin-log.c\n@@ -642,6 +642,10 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)\n \t\tlist[nr - 1] = commit;\n \t}\n \ttotal = nr;\n+\n+\t/* don't number patches when there's only one */\n+\tif (total == 1)\n+\t\tnumbered = 0;\n \tif (numbered)\n \t\trev.total = total + start_number - 1;\n \trev.add_signoff = add_signoff;\n-- \n1.5.3.4.1273.g725c19\n"},{"id":"56845","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0710221044080.25221@racer.site","threadId":"10421","inReplyTo":"20071021144637.762085BB92@nox.op5.se","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-format-patch: Don't number patches when there's only one","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-10-22T09:44:12Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-22T09:44:12Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n\n> [PATCH 1/1] looks a bit silly, and automagically handling this in \n> git-format-patch makes some scripting around it a lot more pleasant.\n\nI think you should not use \"-n\" if you do not want to have the numbers.  \nIn circumstances as yours, where you can have patch series larger than \none, I imagine that the \"[PATCH 1/1]\" bears an important information, \nwhich is not present in \"[PATCH]\": this patch series contains only one \npatch.\n\nIOW I do not like your patch: too much DWIDNS (Do What I Did NOT Say) for \nme.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"56847","messageId":"471C77F0.5050701@op5.se","threadId":"10421","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0710221044080.25221@racer.site","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-format-patch: Don't number patches when there's only one","fromName":"Andreas Ericsson","fromEmail":"ae@op5.se","sentAt":"2007-10-22T10:14:08Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-22T10:14:08Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"ae@op5.se","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/426e89595c75a8f5252dd0c989e5fabe5bcac616e68557427ad9aef6b0ca342a?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> Hi,\n> \n> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n> \n>> [PATCH 1/1] looks a bit silly, and automagically handling this in \n>> git-format-patch makes some scripting around it a lot more pleasant.\n> \n> I think you should not use \"-n\" if you do not want to have the numbers.  \n\nThis stems from creating scripts around it where I only want to see the \nnumbers if there is more than a single patch. Currently I can't do that \nwithout running git-format-patch twice or re-implementing the revision \nparsing machinery to count revisions prior to passing arguments to \nformat-patch.\n\n> In circumstances as yours, where you can have patch series larger than \n> one, I imagine that the \"[PATCH 1/1]\" bears an important information, \n> which is not present in \"[PATCH]\": this patch series contains only one \n> patch.\n> \n\nThat's sort of implicit in [PATCH], since all patch-series added by the \ntool I'm scripting will have [PATCH n/m], while I'd prefer for \nsingle-patches to have only [PATCH].\n\n> IOW I do not like your patch: too much DWIDNS (Do What I Did NOT Say) for \n> me.\n> \n\nWould a separate option be acceptable to you?\n\nIt doesn't have to be fancy or short, since I really only mean to use it \nfrom our scripts.\n\n-- \nAndreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se\nOP5 AB                             www.op5.se\nTel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231\n"},{"id":"56848","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0710221119300.25221@racer.site","threadId":"10421","inReplyTo":"471C77F0.5050701@op5.se","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-format-patch: Don't number patches when there's only one","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-10-22T10:22:48Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-22T10:22:48Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n\n> Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> \n> > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n> > \n> > > [PATCH 1/1] looks a bit silly, and automagically handling this in \n> > > git-format-patch makes some scripting around it a lot more pleasant.\n> > \n> > I think you should not use \"-n\" if you do not want to have the \n> > numbers.\n> \n> This stems from creating scripts around it where I only want to see the \n> numbers if there is more than a single patch. Currently I can't do that \n> without running git-format-patch twice or re-implementing the revision \n> parsing machinery to count revisions prior to passing arguments to \n> format-patch.\n\nWhy not have something as simple as\n\n\tnumbered=\n\ttest $(git rev-list $options | wc -l) -gt 1 && numbered=-n\n\n\t[...]\n\n\tgit format-patch $numbered $options\n\nAt the moment, the semantics of \"--numbered\" is really clear and precise.  \nAnd I really like that.  It makes for less surprises.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"56856","messageId":"471C85C1.3020308@op5.se","threadId":"10421","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0710221119300.25221@racer.site","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-format-patch: Don't number patches when there's only one","fromName":"Andreas Ericsson","fromEmail":"ae@op5.se","sentAt":"2007-10-22T11:13:05Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-22T11:13:05Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"ae@op5.se","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/426e89595c75a8f5252dd0c989e5fabe5bcac616e68557427ad9aef6b0ca342a?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> Hi,\n> \n> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n> \n>> Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n>>\n>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n>>>\n>>>> [PATCH 1/1] looks a bit silly, and automagically handling this in \n>>>> git-format-patch makes some scripting around it a lot more pleasant.\n>>> I think you should not use \"-n\" if you do not want to have the \n>>> numbers.\n>> This stems from creating scripts around it where I only want to see the \n>> numbers if there is more than a single patch. Currently I can't do that \n>> without running git-format-patch twice or re-implementing the revision \n>> parsing machinery to count revisions prior to passing arguments to \n>> format-patch.\n> \n> Why not have something as simple as\n> \n> \tnumbered=\n> \ttest $(git rev-list $options | wc -l) -gt 1 && numbered=-n\n> \n\nBecause 23498~12 != 23498~12..HEAD to git rev-list, but it is to\ngit-format-patch, meaning I'll have to duplicate the logic in every \nscript that's supposed to use it or risk introducing a third way of \nspecifying a list of revisions.\n\n> \t[...]\n> \n> \tgit format-patch $numbered $options\n> \n> At the moment, the semantics of \"--numbered\" is really clear and precise.  \n> And I really like that.  It makes for less surprises.\n> \n\nSemantics could be equally clear for --numbered-if-multiple.\n\n-- \nAndreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se\nOP5 AB                             www.op5.se\nTel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231\n"},{"id":"58149","messageId":"1194104694-12530-1-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org","threadId":"10421","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0710221044080.25221@racer.site","subject":"[PATCH] git-format-patch: Number patches when there are more than one","fromName":"Mike Hommey","fromEmail":"mh@glandium.org","sentAt":"2007-11-03T15:44:54Z","receivedAt":"2007-11-03T15:44:54Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"mh@glandium.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1038527?v=4"},"body":"Automagically enable numbering if we output more than one patch.\n\nSigned-off-by: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>\n---\n\nOn Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:44:12AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> Hi,\n> \n> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n> \n> > [PATCH 1/1] looks a bit silly, and automagically handling this in \n> > git-format-patch makes some scripting around it a lot more pleasant.\n> \n> I think you should not use \"-n\" if you do not want to have the numbers.  \n> In circumstances as yours, where you can have patch series larger than \n> one, I imagine that the \"[PATCH 1/1]\" bears an important information, \n> which is not present in \"[PATCH]\": this patch series contains only one \n> patch.\n> \n> IOW I do not like your patch: too much DWIDNS (Do What I Did NOT Say) for \n> me.\n\nHow about the contrary ?\n\n\n Documentation/git-format-patch.txt |    3 ++-\n builtin-log.c                      |    2 ++\n 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt b/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt\nindex f0617ef..b77daed 100644\n--- a/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt\n@@ -56,7 +56,8 @@ If -o is specified, output files are created in <dir>.  Otherwise\n they are created in the current working directory.\n \n If -n is specified, instead of \"[PATCH] Subject\", the first line\n-is formatted as \"[PATCH n/m] Subject\".\n+is formatted as \"[PATCH n/m] Subject\". This is the default when\n+there is more than one commit to prepare patches for.\n \n If given --thread, git-format-patch will generate In-Reply-To and\n References headers to make the second and subsequent patch mails appear\ndiff --git a/builtin-log.c b/builtin-log.c\nindex 8b2bf63..640d6e7 100644\n--- a/builtin-log.c\n+++ b/builtin-log.c\n@@ -642,6 +642,8 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)\n \t\tlist[nr - 1] = commit;\n \t}\n \ttotal = nr;\n+\tif (!keep_subject && total > 1)\n+\t\tnumbered = 1;\n \tif (numbered)\n \t\trev.total = total + start_number - 1;\n \trev.add_signoff = add_signoff;\n-- \n1.5.3.5\n"},{"id":"58150","messageId":"472C9AFC.3000509@op5.se","threadId":"10421","inReplyTo":"1194104694-12530-1-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-format-patch: Number patches when there are more than one","fromName":"Andreas Ericsson","fromEmail":"ae@op5.se","sentAt":"2007-11-03T15:59:56Z","receivedAt":"2007-11-03T15:59:56Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"ae@op5.se","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/426e89595c75a8f5252dd0c989e5fabe5bcac616e68557427ad9aef6b0ca342a?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Mike Hommey wrote:\n> Automagically enable numbering if we output more than one patch.\n> \n> Signed-off-by: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>\n> ---\n> \n> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:44:12AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n>> Hi,\n>>\n>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n>>\n>>> [PATCH 1/1] looks a bit silly, and automagically handling this in \n>>> git-format-patch makes some scripting around it a lot more pleasant.\n>> I think you should not use \"-n\" if you do not want to have the numbers.  \n>> In circumstances as yours, where you can have patch series larger than \n>> one, I imagine that the \"[PATCH 1/1]\" bears an important information, \n>> which is not present in \"[PATCH]\": this patch series contains only one \n>> patch.\n>>\n>> IOW I do not like your patch: too much DWIDNS (Do What I Did NOT Say) for \n>> me.\n> \n> How about the contrary ?\n> \n\nWorks for me. How does one turn it off?\n\n-- \nAndreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se\nOP5 AB                             www.op5.se\nTel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231\n"},{"id":"58151","messageId":"20071103160323.GA13284@glandium.org","threadId":"10421","inReplyTo":"472C9AFC.3000509@op5.se","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-format-patch: Number patches when there are more than one","fromName":"Mike Hommey","fromEmail":"mh@glandium.org","sentAt":"2007-11-03T16:03:23Z","receivedAt":"2007-11-03T16:03:23Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"mh@glandium.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1038527?v=4"},"body":"On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 04:59:56PM +0100, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n> Mike Hommey wrote:\n>> Automagically enable numbering if we output more than one patch.\n>> Signed-off-by: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>\n>> ---\n>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:44:12AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n>>> Hi,\n>>>\n>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n>>>\n>>>> [PATCH 1/1] looks a bit silly, and automagically handling this in \n>>>> git-format-patch makes some scripting around it a lot more pleasant.\n>>> I think you should not use \"-n\" if you do not want to have the numbers.  \n>>> In circumstances as yours, where you can have patch series larger than \n>>> one, I imagine that the \"[PATCH 1/1]\" bears an important information, \n>>> which is not present in \"[PATCH]\": this patch series contains only one \n>>> patch.\n>>>\n>>> IOW I do not like your patch: too much DWIDNS (Do What I Did NOT Say) for \n>>> me.\n>> How about the contrary ?\n>\n> Works for me. How does one turn it off?\n\nDoes it make sense to turn it off ?\n\nMike\n"},{"id":"58154","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0711031631020.4362@racer.site","threadId":"10421","inReplyTo":"1194104694-12530-1-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-format-patch: Number patches when there are more than one","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-11-03T16:31:30Z","receivedAt":"2007-11-03T16:31:30Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Mike Hommey wrote:\n\n> Automagically enable numbering if we output more than one patch.\n> \n> Signed-off-by: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>\n> ---\n> \n> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:44:12AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> > Hi,\n> > \n> > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n> > \n> > > [PATCH 1/1] looks a bit silly, and automagically handling this in \n> > > git-format-patch makes some scripting around it a lot more pleasant.\n> > \n> > I think you should not use \"-n\" if you do not want to have the numbers.  \n> > In circumstances as yours, where you can have patch series larger than \n> > one, I imagine that the \"[PATCH 1/1]\" bears an important information, \n> > which is not present in \"[PATCH]\": this patch series contains only one \n> > patch.\n> > \n> > IOW I do not like your patch: too much DWIDNS (Do What I Did NOT Say) for \n> > me.\n> \n> How about the contrary ?\n\nStill DWIDNSAA.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"58155","messageId":"472CA29F.3090701@op5.se","threadId":"10421","inReplyTo":"20071103160323.GA13284@glandium.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-format-patch: Number patches when there are more than one","fromName":"Andreas Ericsson","fromEmail":"ae@op5.se","sentAt":"2007-11-03T16:32:31Z","receivedAt":"2007-11-03T16:32:31Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"ae@op5.se","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/426e89595c75a8f5252dd0c989e5fabe5bcac616e68557427ad9aef6b0ca342a?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Mike Hommey wrote:\n> On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 04:59:56PM +0100, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n>> Mike Hommey wrote:\n>>> Automagically enable numbering if we output more than one patch.\n>>> Signed-off-by: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>\n>>> ---\n>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:44:12AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n>>>> Hi,\n>>>>\n>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n>>>>\n>>>>> [PATCH 1/1] looks a bit silly, and automagically handling this in \n>>>>> git-format-patch makes some scripting around it a lot more pleasant.\n>>>> I think you should not use \"-n\" if you do not want to have the numbers.  \n>>>> In circumstances as yours, where you can have patch series larger than \n>>>> one, I imagine that the \"[PATCH 1/1]\" bears an important information, \n>>>> which is not present in \"[PATCH]\": this patch series contains only one \n>>>> patch.\n>>>>\n>>>> IOW I do not like your patch: too much DWIDNS (Do What I Did NOT Say) for \n>>>> me.\n>>> How about the contrary ?\n>> Works for me. How does one turn it off?\n> \n> Does it make sense to turn it off ?\n> \n\nSometimes, yes. I frequently gather several small fixes on a branch and then\nsend all of them at once. They rarely depend on each other, and apply order\nis usually not important, so it doesn't make sense to order them.\n\n-- \nAndreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se\nOP5 AB                             www.op5.se\nTel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231\n"},{"id":"58156","messageId":"472CA301.50508@op5.se","threadId":"10421","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0711031631020.4362@racer.site","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-format-patch: Number patches when there are more than one","fromName":"Andreas Ericsson","fromEmail":"ae@op5.se","sentAt":"2007-11-03T16:34:09Z","receivedAt":"2007-11-03T16:34:09Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"ae@op5.se","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/426e89595c75a8f5252dd0c989e5fabe5bcac616e68557427ad9aef6b0ca342a?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> Hi,\n> \n> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Mike Hommey wrote:\n> \n>> Automagically enable numbering if we output more than one patch.\n>>\n>> Signed-off-by: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>\n>> ---\n>>\n>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:44:12AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n>>> Hi,\n>>>\n>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n>>>\n>>>> [PATCH 1/1] looks a bit silly, and automagically handling this in \n>>>> git-format-patch makes some scripting around it a lot more pleasant.\n>>> I think you should not use \"-n\" if you do not want to have the numbers.  \n>>> In circumstances as yours, where you can have patch series larger than \n>>> one, I imagine that the \"[PATCH 1/1]\" bears an important information, \n>>> which is not present in \"[PATCH]\": this patch series contains only one \n>>> patch.\n>>>\n>>> IOW I do not like your patch: too much DWIDNS (Do What I Did NOT Say) for \n>>> me.\n>> How about the contrary ?\n> \n> Still DWIDNSAA.\n> \n\nEvery piece of DWIM can be translated as \"do what I didn't say\". If you had to\nsay it, it wouldn't be DWIM after all.\n\n-- \nAndreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se\nOP5 AB                             www.op5.se\nTel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231\n"},{"id":"58164","messageId":"87hck3cg4o.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net","threadId":"10421","inReplyTo":"472CA29F.3090701@op5.se","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-format-patch: Number patches when there are more than one","fromName":"Samuel Tardieu","fromEmail":"sam@rfc1149.net","sentAt":"2007-11-03T18:56:23Z","receivedAt":"2007-11-03T18:56:23Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"sam@rfc1149.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/44656?v=4"},"body":">>>>> \"Andreas\" == Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:\n\n>> Does it make sense to turn it off ?\n\nAndreas> Sometimes, yes. I frequently gather several small fixes on a\nAndreas> branch and then send all of them at once. They rarely depend\nAndreas> on each other, and apply order is usually not important, so\nAndreas> it doesn't make sense to order them.\n\nSo do I. I prefer the auto-numbering to be off by default as it is now.\n\n  Sam\n-- \nSamuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/\n"},{"id":"58191","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0711040023000.4362@racer.site","threadId":"10421","inReplyTo":"472CA301.50508@op5.se","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-format-patch: Number patches when there are more than one","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-11-04T00:25:22Z","receivedAt":"2007-11-04T00:25:22Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n\n> Every piece of DWIM can be translated as \"do what I didn't say\". If you \n> had to say it, it wouldn't be DWIM after all.\n\nAt some point, though, it becomes a \"Do what _I_ (and nobody else does, or \nat least what a substantial part of the rest of the world did not) mean\", \nand that point is reached here and now.\n\nWow.  I did not think I had to explain _that_.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"58236","messageId":"472D95A3.3030108@op5.se","threadId":"10421","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0711040023000.4362@racer.site","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-format-patch: Number patches when there are more than one","fromName":"Andreas Ericsson","fromEmail":"ae@op5.se","sentAt":"2007-11-04T09:49:23Z","receivedAt":"2007-11-04T09:49:23Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"ae@op5.se","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/426e89595c75a8f5252dd0c989e5fabe5bcac616e68557427ad9aef6b0ca342a?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> Hi,\n> \n> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n> \n>> Every piece of DWIM can be translated as \"do what I didn't say\". If you \n>> had to say it, it wouldn't be DWIM after all.\n> \n> At some point, though, it becomes a \"Do what _I_ (and nobody else does, or \n> at least what a substantial part of the rest of the world did not) mean\", \n> and that point is reached here and now.\n> \n\nEvery piece of dwimmery is suggested by someone and usually backed by a few,\nso it's likely wanted by many. Your ultra-conserative \"works for *me*, so\nshut up and stop trying to change things\" means git really has to be flawless.\nFor you, that is. For others, there are still things to improve. I'd\nappreciate if you could losen the \"MY playpen\" a little though, as it takes\nan awful lot of energy from the constructive discussions.\n\n> Wow.  I did not think I had to explain _that_.\n> \n\nDito.\n\n-- \nAndreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se\nOP5 AB                             www.op5.se\nTel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231\n"}]}