Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] update-ref: add symref support for --stdin

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 23, 2024, 16:29 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqr0dsv6e8.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <CAOLa=ZS31CuL8kDODNfM5L8gXN6RUOG5uEP5Q9JzEuaxtLEZ8g@mail.gmail.com>

Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> The patches 1, 5 fix small issues in the reference backends. The other
>>> patches 2, 3, 4 & 6, each add one of the new sub-commands.
>>>
>>> The series is based off master, with 'kn/ref-transaction-symref' merged
>>> in. There seem to be no conflicts with 'next' or 'seen'.
>>
>> Wait.  There is something fishy going on.
>> ...
>> Is this actually a single patch submission of 9/9 alone?  Patches
>> 1-8/9 are all old ones that are in 'master' already.
>>
>> Puzzled...
>
> I think this is just a mess up in the range diff, I haven't changed
> anything locally. So adding the correct range diff here:

Quite honestly, I care much less about the range-diff that is almost unintelligible than the actual patches. Your title line says 0/6, your updated range-diff presumably have 1: to 6:? As a sanity check mechanism, the list of commits and the overall diffstat is a more useful part in the cover letter message so that I (or any other recipients) can use to compare against the list of messages that appeared on the list.

We may want to teach "format-patch --range-diff" to place the output of range-diff _below_ the list of commits and the overall diffstat in the cover letter (and at the end of the patch for a single patch topic).

I'll ignore the range-diff in the original cover letter and see if the rest makes sense.

Thanks.