From: David Symonds <dsymonds@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:56:36 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rearrange git-format-patch synopsis to improve clarity.
Message-ID: <ee77f5c20711051456i1bbd0d58j43490c55e0be9664@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <472F9DC6.8020607@op5.se>

On 11/6/07, Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> wrote:
> David Symonds wrote:
> > On 11/5/07, David Symonds <dsymonds@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>                     [-s | --signoff] [<common diff options>]
> >> -                   [--start-number <n>] [--numbered-files]
> >> +                   [-n | --numbered-files | -N | --no-numbered]
> >> +                   [--start-number <n>]
> >
> > Now that I look at it again, it seems the long options look quite
> > inconsistent. I think it should be either
> > --numbered-files/--no-numbered-files or --numbered/--no-numbered. My
> > preference is with the latter (for brevity), but that breaks
> > backward-compatibility.
> >
> > Would you accept a patch that changed --numbered-files to --numbered,
> > and kept the former as a synonym?
> >
>
> I thought files were always numbered, but the [PATCH m/n] wasn't. Have I
> missed something?
>
> If your --numbered-files is supposed to affect only file-numbering, I'd
> suggest *not* using --numbered, as it's ambiguous with "number-subject".

You're right. There's both --numbered ([PATCH n/m] stuff) and
--numbered-files (0001.patch instead of 0001-subject-line.patch). I'll
revise my patch to clarify this.


Dave.