Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:26 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Make get_base_commit detect when useAutoBase is set, and avoid failing >> > if the base commit is picked up automatically. We still attempt to fail >> > if --base=auto is explicitly requested on the command line. >> >> Makes sense. I also think we should fail in such a broken base is >> chosen, when useAutoBase is set by configuration and is not >> overriden from the command line with an explicit use of --no-base >> option, because the end-user expects an appropriate base to be used >> that is computed automatically, but we are failing to find such a >> base---going ahead silently in such a case would be wrong. >> > > I am not sure if I follow here. The whole point of this patch is that > > git config format.useAutoBase true > git format-patch -1 <old id> > > causes failure that is very unexpected, especially if it's been a long > time since you set useAutoBase. > > I do want git format-patch --base=auto <old id> to fail, certainly. I understand. And further, I do not think it is a good idea to silently ignore the configured format.useAutoBase when there is no command line override. IOW, we want both to fail, but with a better message (e.g. "appropriate base not found"). > I wonder if there's a way we can tell when the format patch revisions > in question make no sense with the automatic base. Sorry, I don't quite know what you mean---the fact that you are already getting a cryptic error message means the existing code already knows, no?
