From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 04:14:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] format-patch: introduce format.outputDirectory configuration
Message-ID: <20150619041437.GA26001@peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqd20sd70j.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:46:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > If I were designing from scratch, I would consider making "-o -" output
> > to stdout, and letting it override a previous "-o" (or vice versa). We
> > could still do that (and make "--stdout" an alias for that), but I don't
> > know if it is worth the trouble (it does change the behavior for anybody
> > who wanted a directory called "-", but IMHO it is more likely to save
> > somebody a headache than create one).
> 
> I agree with "later -o should override an earlier one", but I do not
> necessarily agree with "'-o -' should be --stdout", for a simple
> reason that "-o foo" is not "--stdout >foo".

Good point. At any rate, that was all in my "designing from scratch"
hypothetical, so it is doubly not worth considering.

> Perhaps something like this to replace builtin/ part of Alexander's
> patch?
> [...]
> @@ -1337,6 +1342,9 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>  		die (_("--subject-prefix and -k are mutually exclusive."));
>  	rev.preserve_subject = keep_subject;
>  
> +	if (!output_directory && !use_stdout)
> +		output_directory = config_output_directory;
> +

Yeah, I think that is the sanest way to do it given the constraints.

-Peff