Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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? What kind of workflow are you assuming, and who would benefit from such a header under that assumption? It obviously would not help the person who is running format-patch, as he is very well aware that he is giving a pathspec when he runs the command. If the result is used privately to prepare a starting point of possibly unrelated work, it does not matter. If you are assuming a workflow that involves a public review of mailed patches, it is very likely that such a header will be lost unless you are using git-send-email, as we strongly discourage copying and pasting the entire thing in the message body. Anybody sitting on the receiving end worth her salt would judge the submission by looking at the log message, diffstat and the patch, and the sender having used pathspec to format the patch would not be a reason for rejection at all---the quality of the submission is. So offhand, I do not know under what workflow such an extra header would benefit people in what position in the workflow. -- 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