[PATCH] format-patch: support really old non-range syntax, with a warning

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jun 26, 2006, 23:14 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606270113360.29667@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <7vk673h62w.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Now you can say (again)

	git format-patch <theirs> <mine>

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>

---

	Re: [PATCH 3/2] format-patch: use clear_commit_marks() instead of some 
	adhocery

	On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

	> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
	> 
	> >> > Could you test with "origin..master" instead of "origin master"?
	> >> 
	> >> Funny you mention that! Now it works ;-) and it even produces the
	> >> patches I would expect.
	> >
	> > The funny thing is: I did something to account for the old syntax, but 
	> > only if you specified _one_ ref, not _two_. It would be easy, but is it 
	> > needed? (I.e. are your fingers so trained on it?)
	> 
	> If possible I'd rather correct the two syntaxes once and for all now.
	> Maybe accept two with a warning for deprecation?

	Here you are. (Tested once -- works great!)

 builtin-log.c |    5 +++++
 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/builtin-log.c b/builtin-log.c
index 44d2d13..64b2830 100644
--- a/builtin-log.c
+++ b/builtin-log.c
@@ -260,6 +260,11 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const cha
 	if (rev.pending.nr == 1) {
 		rev.pending.objects[0].item->flags |= UNINTERESTING;
 		add_head(&rev);
+	} else if (rev.pending.nr == 2
+			&& !(rev.pending.objects[0].item->flags & UNINTERESTING)
+			&& !(rev.pending.objects[1].item->flags & UNINTERESTING)) {
+		rev.pending.objects[0].item->flags |= UNINTERESTING;
+		fprintf(stderr, "WARNING: obsolete syntax (no range)!\n");
 	}
 
 	if (!use_stdout)