"brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 03:40:09PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Σταύρος Ντέντος <stdedos@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > Would it make sense / be easy enough to have some clobbering check / flag? >> >> Given that use of '-o' to redirect to a fresh/new directory would >> reduce the risk of such clobbering, and use of '-v' to force >> different filenames would reduce the risk of such clobbering, >> it seems to me that aborting the operation when we fail to open >> the output, without any option to override and allow clobbering, >> would make sense. If existing files record 4 patch series >> 0001-x.patch, 0002-y.patch, 0003-z.patch, and 0004-w.patch, and you >> generate with "format-patch --allow-clobbering" a three-patch series, >> it would overwrite 0001 thru 0003 but will not remove 0004, so the >> end result will still be confusing. > > I think a flag for this would be useful. For people that store tarballs > (or pristine-tar files) and patches in their repository, overwriting the > existing files is definitely desired. > > My personal preference is that the flag be --no-clobber, but I can see > arguments for the other side as well. That's actually simpler, which is good, as we do not have to worry about adjusting the existing tests that rely on the clobbering behaviour ;-). I'll find time before I leave for my offline week, but this obviously will not be merged before the upcoming release. Thanks. I think I've mostly outlined a three-patch series to do this ready.
