Re: [PATCH 2/2] format-patch: move range/inter diff at the end of a single patch output

> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > Yeah, that's definitely better. Whether it's preferable over having it
> > after the signature separator I don't know. I personally liked that
> > version better, but can totally see why others may not like it.
> 
> I do not think anybody posted a version that writes inter/range diff
> ater the signature mark.

> > Hm. By now I've gotten a bit indifferent, to be honest. I'm not a 100%
> > sure whether it's an improvement or not, but I don't have a strong
> > opinion either way.
> 
> I am not sure what two you are comparing.  The current version with
> inter/range diff that is before the diffstat and the proposed one
> that places inter/range diff after the main patch?  Between them, I
> do have a strong preference.

> Or placing the inter/range diff after the main patch, before or
> after the signature mark?  As a reader of such a patch, I do not
> have strong preference myself, either, but the signature mark is a
> convention, established and honored for more than a few decades, to
> say "no interesting contents come after this line".  I do not think
> of a strong reason to go against that convention.

> We certainly could use the "---" after the main patch before we add
> the inter/range diff.  I had such a version but its output looked
> rather ugly.  Because the inter/range diff output are designed to be
> very distinct from the usual patch, I'd say something as innocuous
> as an extra blank line would be a good choice.