From: Marco Costalba Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 06:09:12 GMT Subject: Re: git-format-patch possible regressions Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On 5/26/06, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 25 May 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Johannes Schindelin 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. > I was thinking, probably wrong, that the number prepended in file name is used also to disambiguate two patches with the same subject. Marco