On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Is it clearer what I meant? More importantly, did I get the details > right? Yeah, I guess so. > Hmm, I have not seen a clear "yes, because..." yet. I'll repeat: Not everyone has clean branches only with pertinent patches. That's why revision filtering options make sense. > For one thing, Documentation/git-format-patch.txt does not even hint that > you can give pathspecs. builtin_format_patch_usage[] doesn't, either. As > I wrote the initial version of format-patch I can say with some authority > that use with pathspecs were never meant to be supported---if it works, it > works by accident, giving long enough rope to users to potentially cause > themselves harm. > > I am inclined to think that we shouldn't encourage use of pathspecs (just > like we never encouraged use of options like --name-only that never makes > sense in the context of the command) but I am undecided if we also should > forbid the use of pathspecs (just like we did for --name-only recently). How about 'git format-patch --full-diff'? Isn't that a valid way to filter patches just like --author, --grep, and so on? -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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