Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > True. That is also a slightly dangerous thing to do, though, because you > > are omitting full patches in the middle that touch the same paths as the > > patches you include.... > > ... So > > perhaps we are better off to refer the user to git-log(1), say that > > commit limiting options in general would work, but be careful with > > sending a partial result. > > You seem to have spelled out everything I originally wrote in my reply > that I later deleted before sending it out, and I think the reason that > brought you to the three-line conclusion is the same one that made me I > delete them ;-). > > Using a partial patch essentially has the same risk as cherry-picking a > commit into different context, and it is a more generic issue that this > particular manual page should not waste tons of space to teach readers > about. I think "Be careful and clueful" is sufficient and the best we can > do without writing a textbook on distributed software development > disciplines. Perhaps git-format-patch should mention that it was created with path-limited patch in some email pseudo-header like X-Pathspec: or something, don't you think? -- Jakub Narebski Poland -- 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