Re: [PATCH 2/2] format-patch: introduce format.defaultTo

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 6, 2014, 18:49 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0kZn44x98td9YXNT5VfhVs=ueeSty9M7Vh08bdoGjGQYg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqlhythrzq.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

>  - why is a single branch name sufficient?

It does accept a <revision>, so any form is allowed; but why would anyone want that in a format.defaultTo? I'm not sure we want to impose an artificial restriction on the configuration variable though.

>  - is it a better option to simply default to @{u}, if one exists,
>    instead of failing?

I'm not sure @{u} is a good default. Personally, my workflow involves publishing my fork before sending out patches; mainly so that I can compare with @{u} when I do re-spins. People can put @{u} in format.defaultTo if it suits their workflow though.