Re: git-format-patch possible regressions

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> >
> > > Thinking about this again, it makes more sense not to imply --numbered:
> >
> > Yes, that makes sense.  That way you can say "Please start
> > naming the output files at 0032-xxxx.txt, because you gave me 31
> > patch series last time, but I do not want [PATCH x/y] on the
> > subject line, just [PATCH]".
> >
> > That brings up another issue.  Don't we need to have another
> > option --total-number that overrides the /y part above?
>
> I thought about that, too. Isn't the --numbered only useful for submitting
> a patch series via mail? And isn't it necessary to make certain that these
> patches really apply in that order? Isn't it then sensible to force the
> user to have a branch (at least a throw-away one) having exactly these
> patches, just to make sure that the patches really, really apply in that
> order?
>
> If all that is true, then --start-number && --numbered does not make sense
> at all.
>