From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:54:16 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] log/ format-patch improvements
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