From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 18:49:02 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] format-patch: introduce format.defaultTo
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.