Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] format-patch: teach --range-diff to respect -v/--reroll-count

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: May 30, 2018, 21:14 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cS+X8une=g0sSVc4dnZCsnFYe1D=v1iO+zs1ChGuQAJYg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79ka1-emwYsEh1EQdh=pgFUV_bi2xoDu1Ajq=Z1XkkhyuDw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
>>> Unrelated to this patch: how does this series cope with range diffs
>>> that are not in commit-ish but patches on the file system?
>>
>> I'm not following. Can you provide a concrete example to get me up to speed?
>
> I was just wondering if things like
>
>     git format-patch --range-diff=v3-00*.patch --reroll-count=4 -3
>
> would be supported, but that doesn't seem to be the case, now that I read
> the whole series. I don't think it is crucial to support right now.

Okay, that's what I thought you meant (upon thinking harder about it after hitting Send). git-range-diff doesn't support that mode of operation (nor does 'tbdiff', as far as I can tell), so as a thin wrapper around git-range-diff, "git format-patch --range-diff" doesn't support it either.

Perhaps that sort of functionality could implement later by someone, if desired. In the meantime, the following (manual procedure) would approximate it:

    git checkout --detach <base>
    git am v3-00*.patch
    git format-patch --range-diff=...

> This whole series is reviewed by me and I think it is good for inclusion
> once we have a reroll of the range-diff series and aligned the command
> name to call.

Thanks.