Hi Bert, > Subject: format-patch: document and exercise that -o does only create the trailing directory s/does only create/only creates/ ? Anyway, as a prepatory patch, I don't think that it's necessary. Maybe it's just me but I assume that most tools create at most one directory deep. Even mkdir won't created nested dirs unless you pass `-p`. I dunno. On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 11:26:11PM +0200, Bert Wesarg wrote: > Signed-off-by: Bert Wesarg <bert.wesarg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/config/format.txt | 3 ++- > Documentation/git-format-patch.txt | 4 +++- > t/t4014-format-patch.sh | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/config/format.txt b/Documentation/config/format.txt > index 414a5a8a9d..e17c5d6b0f 100644 > --- a/Documentation/config/format.txt > +++ b/Documentation/config/format.txt > @@ -80,7 +80,8 @@ format.coverLetter:: > > format.outputDirectory:: > Set a custom directory to store the resulting files instead of the > - current working directory. > + current working directory. Only the trailing directory will be created > + though. > > format.useAutoBase:: > A boolean value which lets you enable the `--base=auto` option of > diff --git a/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt b/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt > index b9b97e63ae..fe7492353e 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt > @@ -66,7 +66,9 @@ they are created in the current working directory. The default path > can be set with the `format.outputDirectory` configuration option. > The `-o` option takes precedence over `format.outputDirectory`. > To store patches in the current working directory even when > -`format.outputDirectory` points elsewhere, use `-o .`. > +`format.outputDirectory` points elsewhere, use `-o .`. Note that only > +the trailing directory will be created by Git, leading directories must > +already exists. > > By default, the subject of a single patch is "[PATCH] " followed by > the concatenation of lines from the commit message up to the first blank > diff --git a/t/t4014-format-patch.sh b/t/t4014-format-patch.sh > index ca7debf1d4..bf2715a503 100755 > --- a/t/t4014-format-patch.sh > +++ b/t/t4014-format-patch.sh > @@ -1632,6 +1632,22 @@ test_expect_success 'From line has expected format' ' > test_cmp from filtered > ' > > +test_expect_success 'format-patch -o with no leading directories' ' > + rm -fr patches && > + git format-patch -o patches master..side && > + test $(git rev-list master..side | wc -l) -eq $(ls patches | wc -l) For test case you write, please use the following pattern: git rev-list master..side >list && test_line_count = $(ls patches | wc -l) list The first benefit is that we get to take advantage of the test_line_count function that's already written for us. The second is that when we write tests, we shouldn't put Git commands in the upstream of a pipe because if they fail, their return codes will be lost and we won't be able to fail the test properly. > +' > + > +test_expect_success 'format-patch -o with leading existing directories' ' > + git format-patch -o patches/side master..side && > + test $(git rev-list master..side | wc -l) -eq $(ls patches/side | wc -l) > +' > + > +test_expect_failure 'format-patch -o with leading non-existing directories' ' > + rm -fr patches && > + git format-patch -o patches/side master..side > +' As above, I wouldn't really call this a bug in Git. I think we should leave this test case off until the next patch. > + > test_expect_success 'format-patch format.outputDirectory option' ' > test_config format.outputDirectory patches && > rm -fr patches && > -- > 2.23.0.11.g242cf7f110 >
