From: Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:08:57 GMT
Subject: Re: [StGIT PATCH] Implement a new patch identification scheme and id command
Message-ID: <20080616140857.GA24433@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <b0943d9e0806160630m12f5bc7x39053e6c81d983c0@mail.gmail.com>

On 2008-06-16 14:30:32 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

> What about supporting patch ranges with the new id format, something
> like:
>
>   branch:patch1..patch2,patch3
>
> or
>
>   branch:patch1..patch2 branch:patch3

Yes, that's a good idea; the endpoints of a range have to be on the
same branch no matter what, so having the branch: prefix apply to both
of the endpoint patches in "branch:patch1..patch2" is a good idea.

I'm not sure if the comma notation is worth it. And if it turns out to
have been useful, we can just advise users to write

  $ stg foo branch:{p1..p2,p3}

which the shell will expand to

  $ stg foo branch:p1..p2 branch:p3

> This way we could get rid of many --branch options.

Indeed.

-- 
Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com
      www.treskal.com/kalle