Re: [PATCH 0/2] log/ format-patch improvements
- From
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 25, 2010, 20:54 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20100825205416.GB2319@burratino>
- In-Reply-To
- <20100825084416.GC3280@kytes>
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
>> The second patch clarifies the meaning of the `-<n>` option. We should >> also probably force the mutual exclusivity of `-<n>` and <revision >> range> to avoid confusion.
[...]
> Do you see value in this patch or is it just unnecessary baggage?
I see value in avoiding confusion. Maybe one solution would be to make format-patch use --no-merges by default.
$ git log --oneline --no-merges -3 ab/test..origin/pu
70256a3 shell: Rewrite documentation and improve error message
9c46c05 rev-parse: tests git rev-parse --verify master@{n}, for various n
eedce78 sha1_name.c: use warning in preference to fprintf(stderr