From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:09:15 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] log/ format-patch improvements
Message-ID: <7vpqx6pcok.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100825084416.GC3280@kytes>

Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:

> 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?).