Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] format-patch: add ability to use alt cover format
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Mar 12, 2026, 17:25 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqjyvhez96.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <abLw6vUUh36zFK4n@exploit2>
Mirko Faina <mroik@delayed.space> writes:
Show 16 quoted lines
>> future developers to introduce something other than "shortlog", no? >> If the version of Git in 'next' supports "longlog" and user gives > > Not really, anyone can introduce new formats, it's just an additional if > statement. > >> "--cover-letter-format=longlog" to their version that does not yet >> support it, it would be mistaken by the version of the code here as >> a "log:longlog" without any placeholder that shows a fixed string >> "longlog" for each commit in the series? We'd rather want such an >> input to cause failure, no? > > Isn't that the same for any feature that is in next but not merged in > master yet? I wouldn't expect subcommands of history not yet merged in > master to work either if I'm using a version built from master. This is > an issue with the user and I don't think it's grounds for any issue.
Or misspelt "chrnological". What are we gaining by removing it, which would rob safe extensibility (aka "future-proofing") and typo detection?
It is a bad idea to drop "log:", period.