Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> How about 'git format-patch --full-diff'? Isn't that a valid way to
> filter patches just like --author, --grep, and so on?
Our messages obviously crossed and I think we are in agreement that
pathspec that only is used to pick which commit to show and not limits
which parts of the chosen commits are shown might have some uses.
In any case, your patch we are discussing, with a proper commit log
message (without discussing if it is a good idea to give pathspecs) would
be a good first step, regardless of which direction we end up going as the
next step.
As to the "next step", my current thinking, unless there are convincing
arguments why there should be a way to also limit the parts of the commits
are shown, is to
(0) take your patch with an updated message (eh, that is not "next step"
but the "first step");
(1) make --full-diff implicit and default of format-patch (--no-full-diff
could be supported _if_ somebody can argue successfully why limiting
the diff is also a useful thing to do); and
(2) document clearly that format-patch takes optional pathspecs, and in
what situation they are useful.
I think (0) is 'maint' material, and with a good documentation update (1)
and (2) could also be.
--
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