Re: git-format-patch possible regressions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Junio C Hamano wrote:

> So the way for qgit to use it would become something like this.
> Instead of giving a list of ranges like "a..b c..d e..f":
> 
>  * Run "format-patch a..b"; by reading from its stdout you know
>    what patches you got -- you count them.
> 
>  * Run "format-patch --start-number=6 c..d" (if you got 5 out of
>    a..b);
[...]

I still think that having _shortcut notation_ being different for very
different commands is not a bad idea.

If one is really concerned about consistency of rev-list options, we could
use ',' or something to separate separate lists of commits, e.g.

   git format-patch a..b , c..d , e..f

or

   git format-patch a..b --then c..d --then e..f

What do you think about the idea?

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland

-
: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]