Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Calling this --[no-]patch might make it harder to integrate it to >> format-patch later, though. I suspect that people would expect >> "format-patch --no-patch ..." to omit both the patch part of the >> range-diff output *AND* the patch that should be applied to the >> codebase (it of course would defeat the point of format-patch, so >> today's format-patch would not pay attention to --no-patch, of >> course). We need to be careful not to break that when it happens. > > Same concern on my side, which is why I was thinking of other, less > confusing, names, such as --summarize or such, though even that is too > general against the full set of git-format-patch options. It could, > perhaps be a separate option, say, "git format-patch > --range-changes=<prev>" or something, which would embed the equivalent > of "git range-diff --no-patch <prev>...<current>" in the cover letter. I actually am perfectly fine with --no-patch. My "concern" was merely that we should be careful to make sure that we do not stop producing patches when we plug this patch to format-patch when "format-patch --no-patch" is given; rather, it should only suppress the patch part of range-diff shown in the cover letter.
