On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:19 AM ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Usually we can only use `format-patch -v<n>` to generate integral > version numbers patches, but if we can provide `format-patch` with > non-integer versions numbers of patches, this may help us to send patches > such as "v1.1" versions sometimes. On the Git project itself, fractional or non-numeric re-roll "numbers" are not necessarily encouraged[1], so this feature may not be particularly useful here, though perhaps some other project might benefit from it(?). Usually, you would want to justify why the change is desirable. Denton did give a bit of justification in his proposal[2] for this feature, so perhaps update this commit message by copying some of what he wrote as justification. [1]: I think I've only seen Denton send fractional re-rolls; other people sometimes send a periodic "fixup!" patch, but both approaches place extra burden on the project maintainer than merely re-rolling the entire series with a new integer re-roll count. [2]: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/882 > Signed-off-by: ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > diff --git a/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt b/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt > @@ -215,12 +215,12 @@ populated with placeholder text. > -v <n>:: > --reroll-count=<n>:: > - Mark the series as the <n>-th iteration of the topic. The > + Mark the series as the specified version of the topic. The > output filenames have `v<n>` prepended to them, and the > subject prefix ("PATCH" by default, but configurable via the > `--subject-prefix` option) has ` v<n>` appended to it. E.g. > - `--reroll-count=4` may produce `v4-0001-add-makefile.patch` > - file that has "Subject: [PATCH v4 1/20] Add makefile" in it. > + `--reroll-count 4.4` may produce `v4.4-0001-add-makefile.patch` > + file that has "Subject: [PATCH v4.4 1/20] Add makefile" in it. I'm not sure we want to encourage the use of fractional re-roll counts by using it in an example like this. It would probably be better to leave the example as-is. If you really want people to know that fractional re-roll counts are supported, perhaps add separate sentence saying that they are. > diff --git a/builtin/log.c b/builtin/log.c > @@ -1662,13 +1662,13 @@ static void print_bases(struct base_tree_info *bases, FILE *file) > -static const char *diff_title(struct strbuf *sb, int reroll_count, > +static const char *diff_title(struct strbuf *sb, const char *reroll_count, > const char *generic, const char *rerolled) > { > - if (reroll_count <= 0) > + if (!reroll_count) > strbuf_addstr(sb, generic); > else /* RFC may be v0, so allow -v1 to diff against v0 */ > - strbuf_addf(sb, rerolled, reroll_count - 1); > + strbuf_addf(sb, rerolled, "last version"); > return sb->buf; > } There are a couple problems here (at least). First, the string "last version" should be localizable, `_("last version")`. Second, in Denton's proposal[2], he suggested using the string "last version" _only_ if the re-roll count is not an integer. What you have here applies "last version" unconditionally when -v is used so that the outcome is _always_ "Range-diff since last version". If that's what you intend to do, there's no reason to do any sort of interpolation using the template "Range-diff since %". What Denton had in mind was this (using pseudo-code): if re-roll count not specified: message = "Range-diff" else if re-roll count is integer: message = "Range-diff since v%d", re-roll else: message = "Range-diff since v%s", re-roll However, there isn't a good reason to favor "Range-diff since last version" over the simpler generic message "Range-diff". So, the above should be collapsed to: if re-roll count is specified and integer: message = "Range-diff since v%d", re-roll else: message = "Range-diff" > @@ -2080,7 +2080,7 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) > - _("Interdiff against v%d:")); > + _("Interdiff against %s:")); > @@ -2099,7 +2099,7 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) > - _("Range-diff against v%d:")); > + _("Range-diff against %s:")); If you follow my recommendation above using the simplified conditional, then you don't need to drop the "v" since you won't be saying "last version".
