Re: [PATCH 3/4] format-patch: new --resend option for adding "RESEND" to patch subjects
- From
- Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
- Date
- Apr 17, 2024, 07:05 UTC
- Message-ID
- <a0b93341380c2157f6b87e19129abb49@manjaro.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAPig+cRzOHROK0VpkLR9fk7Gr0NRH9VKcH4dGXOuoaO5Ky2c2A@mail.gmail.com>
On 2024-04-17 08:35, Eric Sunshine wrote:
Show 34 quoted lines
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:33 PM Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
> wrote:
>> Add --resend as the new command-line option for "git format-patch"
>> that adds
>> "RESEND" as a (sub)suffix to the patch subject prefix, eventually
>> producing
>> "[PATCH RESEND]" as the default patch subject prefix.
>>
>> "[PATCH RESEND]" is a patch subject prefix commonly used on mailing
>> lists
>> for patches resent to a mailing list after they had attracted no
>> attention
>> for some time, usually for a couple of weeks. As such, this subject
>> prefix
>> deserves adding --resend as a new shorthand option to "git
>> format-patch".
>>
>> Of course, add the description of the new --resend command-line option
>> to
>> the documentation for "git format-patch".
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/builtin/log.c b/builtin/log.c
>> @@ -2111,7 +2116,9 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char
>> **argv, const char *prefix)
>> if (keep_subject && subject_prefix)
>> - die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used
>> together"), "--subject-prefix/--rfc", "-k");
>> + die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used
>> together"), "--subject-prefix/--rfc/--resend", "-k");
>
> You probably want to be using die_for_incompatible_opt4() from
> parse-options.h here.Thanks for the suggestion. Frankly, I haven't researched the available options, assuming that the current code uses the right option. Of course, I'll have a detailed look into it.
> (And you may want a preparatory patch which fixes the preimage to use > die_for_incompatible_opt3() for --subject-prefix, --rfc, and -k > exclusivity, though that may be overkill.)
I'm not really sure what to do. Maybe the other reviewers would prefer an orthogonal approach instead? Maybe that would be better for bisecting later, if need arises for that?