Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
>> The second patch clarifies the meaning of the `-<n>` option. We should
>> also probably force the mutual exclusivity of `-<n>` and <revision
>> range> to avoid confusion.
[...]
> Do you see value in this patch or is it just unnecessary baggage?
I see value in avoiding confusion. Maybe one solution would be to make
format-patch use --no-merges by default.
$ git log --oneline --no-merges -3 ab/test..origin/pu
70256a3 shell: Rewrite documentation and improve error message
9c46c05 rev-parse: tests git rev-parse --verify master@{n}, for various n
eedce78 sha1_name.c: use warning in preference to fprintf(stderr
--
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