Re: [PATCH] format-patch: introduce format.outputDirectory configuration

> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:46:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > If I were designing from scratch, I would consider making "-o -" output
>> > to stdout, and letting it override a previous "-o" (or vice versa). We
>> > could still do that (and make "--stdout" an alias for that), but I don't
>> > know if it is worth the trouble (it does change the behavior for anybody
>> > who wanted a directory called "-", but IMHO it is more likely to save
>> > somebody a headache than create one).
>>
>> I agree with "later -o should override an earlier one", but I do not
>> necessarily agree with "'-o -' should be --stdout", for a simple
>> reason that "-o foo" is not "--stdout >foo".
>
> Good point. At any rate, that was all in my "designing from scratch"
> hypothetical, so it is doubly not worth considering.
>
>> Perhaps something like this to replace builtin/ part of Alexander's
>> patch?
>> [...]
>> @@ -1337,6 +1342,9 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>>               die (_("--subject-prefix and -k are mutually exclusive."));
>>       rev.preserve_subject = keep_subject;
>>
>> +     if (!output_directory && !use_stdout)
>> +             output_directory = config_output_directory;
>> +
>
> Yeah, I think that is the sanest way to do it given the constraints.
>
> -Peff
>