Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > That seems worse to me, because "it is impossible" implies that this > can never be changed. But I don't think that's true. We might one day > output something useful for merges. Fair enough. You are more optimistic than I am ;-) > I think one could argue that any merge information (including conflict > resolution) works against the root notion of format-patch, which is a > set of changes that can be applied on a range of basesa. That's true and it was the primary motive for omiting merges. > But even that I > would be hesitant to commit to (since --base exists now). I am not quite sure what --base has to throw into the equation. The information --base gives is often useful when I want to learn where the patches were taken from, but that does not restrict where the patches are actually applied to in any meaningful way (iow, "on a range of bases" part is not affected).
