From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:34:42 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] log/ format-patch improvements
Message-ID: <20100826053439.GB9407@kytes>
In-Reply-To: <20100825205416.GB2319@burratino>

Hi Jonathan and Junio,

Junio C Hamano writes:
> I am not very impressed by the counting.  It probably makes more sense to
> count only what we are actually going to process and emit, i.e. always use
> no-merges (do we even support format-patch on a merge?).  

Frankly, I think the patch looks like an ugly hack myself. No,
format-patch doesn't support merge commits at all.

Jonathan Nieder writes:
> 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.

Good idea. I'll write a patch. Do we also want people to be able to
turn off `--no-merges`? If so, how?

-- Ram