Re: [PATCH 0/2] log/ format-patch improvements
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Aug 25, 2010, 22:09 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vpqx6pcok.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20100825084416.GC3280@kytes>
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:
Show 22 quoted lines
> Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: >> The first patch implements Jakub's suggestion. Arguably, it's slightly >> complicated- it took me more than a few minutes to do the math with >> `nr` and `nr_i`. >> >> 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. >> >> Additionally, thanks to Thomas for drilling into me the fundamental >> difference between -<n> and a revision range (on IRC). >> >> Ramkumar Ramachandra (2): >> git-format-patch: Print a diagnostic message when ignoring commits >> log: Improve description of '-<n>' option in documentation >> >> Documentation/git-format-patch.txt | 2 +- >> Documentation/git-log.txt | 2 +- >> builtin/log.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- >> 3 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > Do you see value in this patch or is it just unnecessary baggage?
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?).