Re: [PATCH 3/3] format-patch: --no-clobber refrains from overwriting output files

From: Ntentos Stavros <stdedos@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 12, 2019, 20:53 UTC
Message-ID: <a063547c-4958-aa62-cb76-e4970927730f@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190223133418.GD22403@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Hello there,

Apologies for "jumping in". I was mentioned in [PATCH 0/3] but then for a (good) reason or another, I wasn't CC-ed in the patches.

I was the original "suggester" for this feature in the mailing list (https://public-inbox.org/git/CAHMHMxXxo4zXcriBJE2k3mWgwAj7KGA_AChuEmyciESGOC_7Bg@mail.gmail.com/)

On 22/2/2019 10:38 μ.μ., Eric Sunshine wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Meh. I haven't particularly been following the thread, but this commit
> message doesn't necessarily provide sufficient justification for
> further bloating git-format-patch's set of options, its documentation,
> and implementation, not to mention potential user-brain overload. With
> the possible exception of a 1-patch series, anyone who stores multiple
> versions of a patch series without using -o and/or -v is going to have
> a mess to deal with regardless of this new option. (Just trying to
> figure out which *.patch file belongs to which version of a patch
> series will be a nightmare without use of -o and/or -v.)

On 23/2/2019 3:34 μ.μ., Jeff King wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> I suspect it won't help much, because remembering to use --no-clobber is
> just as hard as remembering to clean up the stale patches in the first
> place.
> 
> If we were starting from scratch, I'd suggest that --no-clobber be the
> default[1]. But at this point I wonder if people would be annoyed
> (because the clobbering behavior is convenient and works _most_ of the
> time, as long as you don't add, remove, reorder, or retitle patches).
> 
> I suppose that implies having a config option, so at least people who
> want it only have to remember once.
> 
> The patch itself looks well done.
> 
> -Peff

On the last mail of the thread (the one on the link) I mentioned that a "set and forget" setting was my original idea / wish.

"I have heard around" that [PATCH 3/3] was really meh from the reviewers' point of view, and felt that it might not cut it. I thought a benign nudge (and some disambiguation) could help tip the scales, since I am the one doing "not nice things" with git-format-patch :-)

-- 
Yours faithfully,
Ntentos Stavros

---
Αυτό το e-mail ελέγχθηκε για ιούς από το πρόγραμμα Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus