Re: [PATCH v2] MyFirstContribution: Document --range-diff option when writing v2

From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email>
Date: Sep 23, 2021, 13:44 UTC
Message-ID: <709d79f6-3396-368d-3194-1b6d668c2043@iee.email>
In-Reply-To: <kl6lmto4345t.fsf@chooglen-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com>

On 22/09/2021 18:34, Glen Choo wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes:
>
>> Do we need a line to cover/suggest how the V2 to V3 follow up to further
>> review commands are tweaked.
>>
>> This sort of follows from the discussion about keeping the branch `psuh`
>> as the working branch, and the `-v1`, -`v2`, `-v3` as the record of
>> former submissions. The range-diff is then tweaked to be `--range-diff
>> master..psuh-v<N>` where N is the last proper submission (just in case
>> one version was a not-submitted dud).
> While writing, it seemed pretty obvious to me that v2 -> v3 would just
> entail adding 1 to every numeral. Of course I'm biased though, so I'm
> happy to add a line if you think this isn't that obvious.

I'd been coming from thinking of the `range-diff` command where a second range would be required, with a flipping of the grandfather - father - son version references, part triggered by the (false) expectation that the `master..` would also need tweaked.

It's is hard in ref manuals to decide the point at which one need to either give guidance, or point out common conceptual errors.

Also, separately, it may be worth commenting (or just mentioning) about whether to keep the fork-point (or --keep-base) or not, depending on the complexity of the patch series and how it may clash with other series (making it harder for the maintainer if the `rerere` database would need to keep changing)....

All in all. I think we (I) are good with your wording.

Philip