Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> 于2021年3月4日周四 上午8:54写道： > > Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Hmm, others may disagree but I don't really like the idea of > > `--previous-count`. It may be useful for populating "Range-diff vs <n>" > > instead of just "Range-diff" but I don't think it's worth the cost of > > maintaining this option. > > It really depends on the target audience. As a reviewer who may be > too busy to read every iteration of a series, I would probably find > it useless if it gives just "range-diff" or "range-diff with last" > without saying which exact round. Obviously, if you are not doing > range-diff, it will not be an issue. If the patch requires (I > didn't read the latest one) the previous-count to be given when > range-diff or interdiff is not requested, it should probably be > fixed. > > I am also OK with any design decision, as long as it will not close > the door for the occasionally requested feature to carry over cover > letter material from the previous round to the current one. > > Thanks. What we are arguing now is whether it is necessary to add "aginst v<previous_count>" to the patch when the non-integer version number + rangediff/interdiff is required. Denton's point of view may be similar to that of Eric before. Here are my personal thoughts: Personally, I may use GGG more. When I see a title like "Range-diff vs v1:", I can know that this is a change from the previous v1, and it may be better than "Range-diff again v1" To be more specific, but if it is a small patch such as "v1.2", we use previous_count to tell the reviewer that this is a range-diff change from "v1.1" or other versions. Of course this `previous count` can be used in a very small range, but I think it doesn't hurt to keep it, because even if you don't use it, `format patch` will still output "Range-diff", which will not break any known functions. It can only be said that `previous count` provides an option for submitters to know the previous version for reviewers. In this regard, I agree with Junio's point of view. Thanks.
