threads / patch / 16983

patchgit-cherry usage: correct nesting of commit-ish options

Subject: [PATCH next] git-cherry usage: correct nesting of commit-ish options

## tl;dr

5 messages between Jan 4, 2009 and Jan 4, 2009. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 4people: 2as markdown or json

Markus Heidelberg· Jan 4, 2009, 16:11 UTC · lore
Signed-off-by: Markus Heidelberg <markus.heidelberg@web.de>
---

What is the preferred way to say the patch is against next? In the subject like this? Another question: should this patch be split up into two, one for maint/master and another for next?

 Documentation/git-cherry.txt |    2 +-
 builtin-log.c                |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Show changes to 2 files +2 −2

Documentation/git-cherry.txt, builtin-log.c

diff --git a/Documentation/git-cherry.txt b/Documentation/git-cherry.txt
index 556ea23..7deefda 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-cherry.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-cherry.txt
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ git-cherry - Find commits not merged upstream
 
 SYNOPSIS
 --------
-'git cherry' [-v] [<upstream>] [<head>] [<limit>]
+'git cherry' [-v] [<upstream> [<head> [<limit>]]]
 
 DESCRIPTION
 -----------
diff --git a/builtin-log.c b/builtin-log.c
index 243f857..7e9616e 100644
--- a/builtin-log.c
+++ b/builtin-log.c
@@ -1071,7 +1071,7 @@ static int add_pending_commit(const char *arg, struct rev_info *revs, int flags)
 }
 
 static const char cherry_usage[] =
-"git cherry [-v] [<upstream>] [<head>] [<limit>]";
+"git cherry [-v] [<upstream> [<head> [<limit>]]]";
 int cmd_cherry(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 {
 	struct rev_info revs;

-- 
1.6.1.35.g0c23
Markus Heidelberg· Jan 4, 2009, 16:16 UTC · re: Markus Heidelberg · lore

Re: [PATCH next] git-cherry usage: correct nesting of commit-ish options

Markus Heidelberg, 04.01.2009:
Show 8 quoted lines
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Heidelberg <markus.heidelberg@web.de>
> ---
> 
> What is the preferred way to say the patch is against next? In the
> subject like this?
> Another question: should this patch be split up into two, one for
> maint/master and another for next?

For the second patch against next I meant it being based on origin/next that already includes the extracted patch for maint/master.

Miklos Vajna· Jan 4, 2009, 17:35 UTC · re: Markus Heidelberg · lore

Re: [PATCH next] git-cherry usage: correct nesting of commit-ish options

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:11:22PM +0100, Markus Heidelberg <markus.heidelberg@web.de> wrote:
> Another question: should this patch be split up into two, one for
> maint/master and another for next?

AFAIK sending patches against next is not preferred at all. You should send your patches against master, or - if you have a strong reason - on top of a given topic branch.

In the later case I just use to write "This applies on top of 'xx/foo-bar'." between the three dashes and the diffstat.

Markus Heidelberg· Jan 4, 2009, 18:01 UTC · re: Miklos Vajna · lore

Re: [PATCH next] git-cherry usage: correct nesting of commit-ish options

Miklos Vajna, 04.01.2009:
Show 5 quoted lines
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:11:22PM +0100, Markus Heidelberg <markus.heidelberg@web.de> wrote:
> > Another question: should this patch be split up into two, one for
> > maint/master and another for next?
> 
> AFAIK sending patches against next is not preferred at all.
>From Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
    If you are preparing a work based on "next" branch,
    that is fine, but please mark it as such.

I guess the only reason is a required dependency not available in 'master'.

> You should
> send your patches against master, or - if you have a strong reason - on
> top of a given topic branch.

This patch depends on a commit in 'next'. But right, I could have mentioned that it's against 'mh/cherry-default' as Junio suggested a few days ago.

Miklos Vajna· Jan 4, 2009, 22:47 UTC · re: Markus Heidelberg · lore

Re: [PATCH next] git-cherry usage: correct nesting of commit-ish options

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 07:01:18PM +0100, Markus Heidelberg <markus.heidelberg@web.de> wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> > AFAIK sending patches against next is not preferred at all.
> 
> From Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
> 
>     If you are preparing a work based on "next" branch,
>     that is fine, but please mark it as such.

Ouch, then sorry for the misinformation. (Especially that it turns out Junio added that line in 45d2b286.)

← back to recent threads